I specifically said there is no such thing as consent from someone who isn't conscious, — Echarmion

And yet we act as if consent is required.

Regardless of fault, the possibility means it's not the same as actually having consent. — Echarmion

Fair enough but it's as close as we'll get. If a written document doesn't imply consent then idk what will.

"Maximisation of choice" is the answer to the question: why can you not kill people without their consent. — Echarmion

I don't think any more justification is necessary. You cannot kill people without their consent. Period. And if further justification was needed I'd hesitate to say it was because of "maximization of choice".

I still do not see what is being conserved — Echarmion

What do you mean what is being conserved? That is not how the word is used clearly. "Conservative" just means less likely to do harm.

Option A: Can cause harm
Option B: Cannot cause harm

Option B is more conservative.

I don't quite see what "having more harm" means if harm is "doing something to someone they don't want done". Grammatically, you can't have more doing. — Echarmion

Cmon now I'm sure you can guess. People have more things they don't want done unto them when they exist than when they don't exist. This is trivially true since when people don't exist there is nothing that can be done to them nor is there anything that they don't want done.

You have defined harm from the perspective of the subject, the part that acts. But you're now using it in a passive sentence from the perspective of the object that is acted upon. — Echarmion

No I'm not. Explanation above.

I am asking to find out what your "default positions" are, because it seems to me that you want to minimize suffering in one situation, and then in another you say that the important question is consent, and suffering is only relevant as a proxy. — Echarmion

You do not have to minimize anyone else's suffering unless they're dependents. But what you must not do is act in such a manner that they suffer more due to your actions as opposed to if you just weren't around then.

If it's not answered, you have no idea what you actually demand. — Echarmion

I know what consent is. And I know I don't have it in this case.
What does "consent from an unconscious person" mean?
And yet you talk of consent.

I don't think you have consent even if you have a written declaration for medical procedures. It's always possible they changed their mind since writing it. — Echarmion

At that point it's their fault. They should have changed the declaration if they changed their mind.

Yes, if you have no idea you keep the person alive — Echarmion

Agreed. But I don't think the principle is "maximization of choice". I think the principle is simply: You can't kill people without their consent

What's conservative about it? You're not conserving anything. — Echarmion

If you have a child you risk someone getting harmed. If you don't, no one gets harmed. Therefore the latter is obviously more conservative.

But I don't think a meaningful definition of harm that doesn't refer to individual will somewhere is possible. — Echarmion

Agreed. I define harm as simply "Doing something they don't want done".

But we don't know that. You said so yourself:

And I already told you that life is not "overall" objectively more harmful or good. — Echarmion

Even IF their life is overall good, they definitely had more harm due to being born than they would have had they not been born (because then they would have had NO harm).

there needs to be an acceptance of the relativistic framework. — Isaac

There is. And I've repeatedly said there is. On multiple threads.

It starts with "you wouldn't do X would you?", as if a moral naturalist — Isaac

The intention is not to seem like a moral naturalist, but to see if you share the same relativistic framework.

How would one argue as a moral relativist in your book if "you wouldn't do X would you?" is somehow indicating moral naturalism. I would think a moral naturalist would say "You shouldn't do X". He won't ask what you think because that is irrelevant to him, within his framework he already knows he's right.

I don't think there is anything that implies that the speaker there is a moral naturalist. I think you have a bad habit of reading what you want into what others write.

yet doing so (for the purposes of continuing the human race, among other things) is considered morally acceptable by most moral systems. — Isaac

Great, you have a premise I don't. That the continuation of the human race has anything to do with morality. Whereas I think it has to come out of the morality. As I said on the other thread: You're welcome to your view, but I don't share it. And that is the extent to which I care to talk about this topic with you provided you don't keep replying claiming I said things I didn't say.

or else you're just writing the equivalent of your favourite flavour of ice-cream, which is pointless on a public philosophy forum. — Isaac

Or maybe it's not so binary. Maybe despite being relativistic, I am trying to see whether or not there are people who share the same premises but don't end up with the same conclusion, and if so how they do it, just out of personal interest.

Why isn't it always our job to minimize suffering? — Echarmion

Why would it be? You keep asking these questions that seem to imply a "default position" where there is none.

If you admit the question is meaningless, you cannot then go ahead and require it answered. — Echarmion

I don't require it answered. You're the one asking "What does it mean to have consent from from non-existence", not me. Why would I require that answered?

I don't know where you live, but where I live we absolutely do pull the plug if there is sufficient evidence that this would be what the person wanted. — Echarmion

Same here. More importantly, what do you do if you have no idea that that is what the person wanted or didn't want? You don't pull the plug do you? If you already knew the person would want the plug pulled then you DO have consent.

So if consent is not available, we then default to least harm? Then why do antinatalists bring up consent? — Echarmion

To say that it is unavailable. Therefore the conservative course should be taken. Which is not to have kids.

We default to figuring out what the person would want, their interest, which is the same as asking what is the least harm to them. — Echarmion

I wouldn't conflate what a person wants with what's least harmful to them. For example, the comatose patient may have wanted people to pull the plug if he went comatose but never told anybody.

But regardless, if this is what we do, why would having kids be ethical when we know for a fact that not being born is less harm than being born?

You have figured out what the best thing to do would be, but then you go out and do something else, because why pick the best option? — Echarmion

Because the best option is too difficult to be expected regularly.

Fair enough.

But how does this work if you're at the same time saying I am not allowed to assess harm for others? — Echarmion

I have explained this countless times now. You are part of the calculation. You are part of these "others". Harming others is fine if it either you or them (again, because you are part of the calculation).

Edit: I misread. I never actually claimed that you are not allowed to assess harm for others though.

The question was essentially when we are allowed to cause harm on the basis of our assessment that doing so is better than the alternative. — Echarmion

When it is our job to minimize the other party's suffering AND when we know that our choice is actually minimizng suffering (vaccines for example). Which only really happens with dependents.

What would it mean to have consent from nonexistence? — Echarmion

What would it mean to have consent from an unconscious person? In both cases: Meaningless question. Point is, you need consent, and you don't have it. Doesn't matter why you don't have it.

I was asking you whether the question is relevant I'm your view. — Echarmion

It isn't because life isn't objectively good or bad.

We're not asking comatose patients for their consent. That'd be a pointless exercise. We ask what their interest is, according to our best guesses. — Echarmion

Not really. We don't pull the plug. Period. You don't "guess" you only look at the amount of harm done in both cases and pick the one with least harm. You take the conservative approach. I challenge you to come up with a situation where you pick the option that does more harm when consent is not available.

How can you have a moral system that doesn't demand the best possible outcome? If you know a better outcome is possible, why would you not demand that outcome? — Echarmion

What's wrong with having such a moral system? Why would you demand?

You usually have the theoretical choice to not comply. Oppression doesn't take away your ability to make choices, it takes away your ability to make those choices operative by imposing consequences. — Echarmion

Yes but when non compliance results in severe harm that's not really a choice. That scenario is what people call "an imposition". For instance: You theoretically could kill someone in public, you'll just be executed for it. In this scenario, while techincally there is a choice, practically there isn't. That is what impositions do, practically remove choices.

The thread is about antinatalism, which makes a moral claim. So we're talking about morality in some form. Since no moral claims are constant (shared across a society or the world), then antinatalism has to either demonstrate the source of its objectivity, or make arguments from within the relativistic framework, or just stop. — Isaac

I don't remember anyone making arguments from objectivity. But regardless you haven't said what is accomplished by talking about "societal morality" in this case.

The point is that you cannot assume people would act as they do in isolation from the social pressures around them and some of those social pressures are the expression of what society considers to be moral duties. — Isaac

Agreed. I didn't say people would act as they do in isolation from social pressures. However I think it's important to note that these "social pressures" are not shared. For example: When was the last time people censured you for not donating to charity? I find it likely that has never even happened (at least it's never happened to me). So we cannot say that donating to charity is obligatory by "social morality".

I don't see much point in talking about what "society considers moral" in the first place if by that you mean what we are socially pressured to do. As that is not constant across a society, much less across the world, so why should we care?

Next goal: Brexit thread.

Nit that I'm saying all social censure is in the form if moral duties — Isaac

So not all social censure is a form of a moral duty.

but the expression of a communities moral duties largely takes the form of social censure, not legal recourse. — Isaac

And not all moral duties are expressed in the form of social censure.

Therefore the "assumption" that they're not interchangeable is warranted.

I meant to ask where you're getting the assumption that they're not interchangeable. — Isaac

It's not an assumption it's a definition. I think most here would agree that social censure and moral duty are different things. For instance, if I grew up in a neighbourhood where theft and murder are the norm, and I was reprimanded for not participating, I think most people would say that I do NOT have a moral duty to steal and murder.

The first:

I'm saying you have no justification for that assumptions because the mere fact that adults now don't require a moral duty to perform acts of kindness does not mean that a world in which such moral duty did not exist would continue to behave that way. — Isaac

So it's mistaken to assume that because you now would act kindly even without the censure of your community that you would have reached that point without it. — Isaac

Because you are using them interchangeably.

And the second I thought was common sense.

I'm saying you have no justification for that assumptions because the mere fact that adults now don't require a moral duty to perform acts of kindness does not mean that a world in which such moral duty did not exist would continue to behave that way. — Isaac

This assumes that at some point in time there was a moral duty to be kind. I don't think there was. This is not to say that there is no social pressure to be kind. You seem to be conflating "moral duty" with "social censure".

But I see from your other posts that a lot of this hinges on your idiosyncratic conflation of 'moral duty' with 'law'. — Isaac

I didn't conflate them. I was arguing that if everybody agreed that there was a moral duty to donate to charity, then there would be a law forcing people to do it. It's not that laws are moral duties, it's that moral duties typically lead to laws.

As I said, I assumed you'd prefer a world in which there were kind people. — Isaac

You're correct and so would anybody. Now, where did I imply that there was no need for societal pressure to make me act kindly?

and that there is therefore no need for censure in order to reach that point — Isaac

Where was this implied exactly?

So I suppose I skipped a stage in my assessment. Do you think it's important to a society that at least a large proportion of it's members are kind? Or do you just not care what we do to each other? — Isaac

It'd be much better if that were the case. But the most important is for the members to not harm each other. Acting kindly is an added bonus on top of that.

I don't see "I would act kindly without censure of my community and without any biological priming" anywhere there.

You don't usually apply your own judgement in place of others, no. But the reasons why matter. Note that we got here from this:

If you're in an abusive relationship, surely you should cause heartbreak. It'd be just as easy to come up with situations where you should cause pain.
— Echarmion

via this:

When I talk of “harm” I mean causing more than you alleviate. So vaccinating a child isn’t harm, even though it hurts and is against their wishes. — Echarmion

In an abusive relationship you could cause harm by breaking up because doing so will alleviate more form yourself.

So is harm different for children and adults? Or is harm really only relevant when dealing with children or other dependents, and the general rule is actually about choice or consent or freedom? — Echarmion

I don't know what you mean by "harm is different", I don't know what I said to make you think that in any way. But regardless, even applying this "general rule" when do we have consent to give birth to people?

Which part precisely? When did I ever say life had “more harm than good”? Please quote me this supposed BS.
— khaled

As per above, does it matter whether life is, overall, harmful or not? — Echarmion

I asked you to quote me when I said "life had more harm than good" as I don't think that sentence makes sense. You failed at doing so. And I already told you that life is not "overall" objectively more harmful or good. So why are you now still trying to get me to make a claim that I never made for a reason?

You're asking for something that's impossible ("you'd need a time machine"), but instead of concluding that, therefore, the standard cannot be applied, you apply it anyways and then claim it's actually violated. — Echarmion

It is not uncommon for consent to be impossible to obtain. For instance, we don't pull the plug on comatose patients. The whole POINT of consent is that the default value for any request is "no" until that request is actually made and answered positively.

Well, perhaps it was just a misunderstanding then. What are virtuous or right actions? — Echarmion

I already said "virtuous" is doing more good than the system demands.

"right" is the best possible outcome (donating to charity/saving the drowning person/ etc)

"moral" is the outcome that is not bad. So not donating to charity is moral in my view. Because you are not obligated to do so. "moral" is basically the least you have to do.

There are probably going to be things you end up doing just because you don't want to damage the relationship (and I don't necessarily refer to a romantic relationship here). — Echarmion

Well if I were to take this to the extreme, then you have an abusive relationship. And I am pretty sure we can agree that the abusers in an abusive relationship are being immoral.

After all, even in extremely oppressive circumstances, there is usually some kind of choice you could make. — Echarmion

What do you mean?

So it's mistaken to assume that because you now would act kindly even without the censure of your community that you would have reached that point without it. — Isaac

When did I claim that?

Not necessarily. It depends on if they actually want to have children. If I don’t want to have kids, I don’t suffer by not having any. — Pinprick

Yea I said X as in it can take on whatever value.

If you look at couples who have fertility issues you will find that the inability to have children can cause serious emotional/psychological harm, and that harm can be spread out to include the couple, their parents, siblings, etc. — Pinprick

Fair enough. And I would actually agree that in cases where X is large enough having children is moral. Problem is that's going to be a miniscule portion anyways.

Not only this, but if the justification for not having children is that it causes harm, then it contradicts itself because not having children also causes harm. — Pinprick

The principle is to cause the least harm. Not to cause no harm. That's impossible.

but you're certainly putting your own assessment in place of the child's. — Echarmion

As I said: Children are a special case because it’s your job as a parent to make sure they don’t do something stupid. You don’t do that for adults or strangers’ children do you?

So what you wrote earlier was just made up BS you don't actually apply in practice? I am confused as to what your actual position is. — Echarmion

Which part precisely? When did I ever say life had “more harm than good”? Please quote me this supposed BS.

So, again, you realise your standards cannot possibly work but you still insist they're correct? — Echarmion

First off, I don’t understand how they’re not working in this scenario. And secondly there was no previous occurrence of them not working.

For one, I don't see how you could possibly live together with anyone else if you find having to do additional chores as a result fundamentally immoral — Echarmion

Your mischaracterizations are getting tiring. My objection was clearly not against chores. My objection was against forcing people to do things. If I am choosing to live with someone else I’m not actually being forced to do anything am I? I am choosing to live there so naturally I take on part of the responsibility.

I can see how this works if we're looking at someone else's decision from the outside. If they do something I consider a moral duty, but they don't, I could say they're being virtuous. — Echarmion

Good

The entire point of figuring out what is and isn't right/virtuous/moral is to tell yourself what you have to do. — Echarmion

Why are you conflating the 3 terms. I define each of them differently.

But being obligated to has no practical consequences — Isaac

Sounds pretty ridiculous. It would be a different world if there was a law that incarcerated people who do not donate to the poor. Being obligated to do something significantly increases your chances of doing it. That is a practical consequence.

I think we might be getting bogged down by the word “obliged”. You may be regarding it being used in the same way as a “rule”. That it’s the rule in society that you must help the drowning man and that the only reason people help is because they are coerced by the rule. Hence the idea that there would be a law incarcerating people if they didn’t help. — Brett

Yea that’s how I use it. I don’t like there being a word “obligated” in the limbo between “not a rule” and “is a rule”.

Aren't you directly contradicting your earlier example about vaccinating children here? — Echarmion

You know for a fact that a vaccine doesn't harm. That's non-negotiable. And children are a bit of a special case where doing harm now to alleviate harm later is required (since one of your duties as a parent is to make sure your kid doesn't suffer as much as possible)

And apart from that, how are you going to assess whether there is "more harm then good" in general if you're not allowed to generalise your own judgement? — Echarmion

You don't. Both are subjective. Some are having a blast with life, some hate it.

What other assessment could possibly apply? — Echarmion

The child's assessment which is obviously not available. That would require a time machine.

Which once again brings us back to the issue that your standards could only possibly be upheld by living as a hermit somewhere. — Echarmion

Not really. If I count myself as part of the calculation then I don't have to live as a hermit somewhere. Could you give an example as to why it would lead to me living as a hermit? What harm am I inflicting by being in society that is so bad I must instead suffer myself so as not to cause it?

You don't somehow loose your ability to act differently if you recognise a moral obligation. — Echarmion

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that there are no practical differences. For instance, if donating to charity was a duty as it is seen in muslim communities for example (zakat), there would be far fewer homeless people. It is a fact of the matter that if you don't consider something a duty you will be less likely to do it (which is why I call doing it anyways virtue)

What could 'have to' possibly mean here? — Isaac

Just what it means anywhere else. Be obligated to.

In other words, there are qualifications. So it would really come down to your personal assessment of whether life is worth living. — Echarmion

No it wouldn't though. My personal assessment of whether life is worth living should be applied for myself, not for others. Just because I find life worth living doesn't mean my child will, and so my assessments are unimportant.

What about being forced to do the dishes every other day? — Echarmion

Still wrong to force people to do it. Much less so than slave labor, but still bad.

There doesn't seem to be any practical difference. — Echarmion

There is a practical difference. I don't have to donate to charity if I don't want to for instance, whereas by your standards you have to. You would also have to volunteer, etc as long as you're capable.

Without any qualification? If you're in an abusive relationship, surely you should cause heartbreak. It'd be just as easy to come up with situations where you should cause pain. — Echarmion

But none where you cause more pain than you alleviate. When I talk of “harm” I mean causing more than you alleviate. So vaccinating a child isn’t harm, even though it hurts and is against their wishes.

But this wasn't really where I way going with the argument. I was wondering what's so bad about having obligations, impositions, being in relationships with others, in the abstract. — Echarmion

It’s not bad in itself. But forcing it on others is wrong. Take forced labor for example.

"things that I think are virtous and that I would do" and "thinks I should do, in the sense that I am morally obliged to", which I cannot make much sense of. — Echarmion

Why not?

Aren't impositions a right and proper part about being human? — Echarmion

So are pain and heartbreak. Yet we agree you shouldn’t cause those.

i don’t think it’s weird. Everybody eats. Doesn’t make it moral or immoral.
— khaled

I get it, you're no longer interested in this conversation. — Echarmion

I don’t know where you get that. I’m just saying you can’t derive a should from a would.

No, but it's still weird to insist it cannot be an obligation even though you'd not expect anyone to object to doing it — Echarmion

I don’t think it’s weird. Everybody eats. Doesn’t make it moral or immoral.

But do you not also consider having children "morally bankrupt", to use your words? — Echarmion

I think it’s wrong yes, but I don’t see how that has to do with what I’ve said so far. I’m just saying that not everyone thinks they have this moral obligation to help with problems they didn’t cause.

To establish that you are not obligated to have kids because of the good it will do. In the same sense that you’re not obligated to help others with problems you didn’t cause. For the people saying “You are denying life”

When one person disagrees with another this means that each thinks the other has made a mistake of some kind. — tinman917

This is usually because we have a stupid habit (myself included) of assuming the other person is starting form the same premises as us. In whichcase the only way to reach a conclusion would be to make a logical error.

It’s just that they have different tastes. — tinman917

In other words different starting premises.

First, there is less disagreement in science than there is in philosophy. But, given that both are based on rational thought, I would have thought there would be about the same in each. — tinman917

Well philosophy is untestable. I can't show you empirical evidence to support my metaphysical theory.

In terms of 'mistakes', I am often quite surprised by the way in which others, including some on this forum, jump in to point out to people that they are mistaken. It can be dismissive and defensive, and perhaps it is a cover up for lack of certainty. — Jack Cummins

:up:

What does that mean? — Brett

Exactly what it says. Why would I not save a drowning person if I can?

They don’t make it a duty. — Brett

That you do not see an obligation to assist someone who needs help. — Brett

Make up your mind please. Is it or is it not a duty?

I did. I said it’s regarded as a gift. — Brett

That's not an answer. Why is it that charity is a gift but saving drowning people is a duty? I ask "Why is one obligatory and the other not". You answer "Because one is a gift and one is a duty". How is that an answer? That's begging the question.

“In a seminal 1986 study, McMillan and Chavis[8] identify four elements of "sense of community":

membership: feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of personal relatedness,
influence: mattering, making a difference to a group and of the group mattering to its members
reinforcement: integration and fulfillment of needs,
shared emotional connection.” Wikipedia — Brett

I don't see: "Being morally obligated to save drowning people" there either...

Because I'm not a heartless bastard? Why are you implying that if it wasn't a duty people wouldn't do it?

What is community then? — Brett

A group of people living in a place.

But I would assist them so what difference does it make? And I would furthermore argue, again, that I'm not the only one that doesn't see such an obligation. That this isn't some universal law or anything inherent in the definition of community.

I'm more so surprised by people who must make it a duty to help. Is that to imply that if it wasn't a duty you wouldn't do it?

I don’t see how you connect a moral obligation to law. — Brett

I'm implying that if everyone agreed on a moral obligation to save drowning people, it is very likely that there would be a law incarcerating people who were able to help but didn't.

Exactly. This is the consequence of refusing their obligation to others. See how it ends up? — Brett

As I said to echarmion, I find it easier to believe that people do not share the same sense of moral obligations than to believe that they do (what are the odds of that?) and that they are just morally bankrupt.

Okay. Then you fail to understand the idea of community and so you are part of the problem. — Brett

I am part of the problem even though I would save the drowning person? What "problem" exactly?

How else could it be deduced, other than by asking, in some form, what rules we would want everyone to follow? — Echarmion

Right. But "what rules would we want everyone to follow" is not answered by "What does everyone usually do" (in this case save drowning person).

I don't think morality should be deduced from what we all would do. — khaled

because I don't see a connection between what we would do and what we should do.

What use would morality be if it didn't tell you right from wrong? — Echarmion

I don't see how that follows form what I said. Morality tells you what's wrong, what's neutral and what's good.

This doesn't follow, since even if everyone agrees to a single moral philosophy, not everyone would always act in accordance with it. — Echarmion

Yes but I find it easier to believe that people do not agree on a single moral philosophy than that we do agree, but are just morally bankrupt.

in this context we're basically already starting that it would be moral to give to it. — Echarmion

For you maybe. I always said that giving to charity is optional, never an obligation.

But why shouldn't something we'd all agree to do be a duty? — Echarmion

What do you mean "agree on"? All we've established is that we would both save a drowning person. That says nothing about the morality of it. If we both happen to be video game enthusiasts and we both buy a particular game, how does it make it a moral duty for us to buy said game? I don't think morality should be deduced from what we all would do.

If it's what we should do, then it is our moral duty. — Echarmion

It's not what I should do if "should" implies that I would be wrong not to do it.

but I think one can establish a moral duty to give to people in need — Echarmion

By that standard our society is totally morally bankrupt. If helping homeless people was a duty, there would be no homeless people.

Donating to charity is an impersonal process. There are
also manyy different kinds of charity. So "donating to charity" is too broad to make any singular moral judgement about. Helping a specific drowning person is a concrete situation you can judge. — Echarmion

So

Lets assume we have found the "perfect charity" where you know exactly what your money is getting used for and it directly improves the lives of others. If such a thing existed would people be obligated to donate now? — khaled

That society regards your assistance to someone in immediate need as an obligation — Brett

If someone drowns and there are 20 people watching, do they get incarcerated? No. So I don't think society sees this as an obligation.

This sense of obligation means that you will receive it if in need yourself. — Brett

How come you can find countless videos of people asking for help to no avail and everyone just walking by? How often do you see beggars without anyone donating anything to them?

If you live within a community and receive benefits from that community in the way that communities function then you are obliged to live according to the mores of that community. — Brett

Agreed. However you have yet to show that part of these obligations is that one must save a drowning person.

No one feels obliged to do it. — Brett

Again, the question is why. No one has answered this so far. Lets assume we have found the "perfect charity" where you know exactly what your money is getting used for and it directly improves the lives of others. If such a thing existed would people be obligated to donate now? Your only gripe against saying that people are obligated to donate seems to be that they are unsure how their money will be used, so it should follow that if they were sure, then they would be obligated to donate no?

The idea that you're an island whose only duty is to not interfere with other islands unless in a transaction is not only counterfactual, it's downright distopian. — Echarmion

And also not my idea. Where did I say "Whose only duty is not to interfere". You can help if you want, you just don't have to. I don't understand why whenever I share this view people worry that it will somehow suddenly make people cold and uncaring towards each other. The idea that I don't have a moral obligation to save a drowning person doesn't mean I won't.

Also, counterfactual? Since when are we talking about facts?

I'd like to ask about your view then. Do you think that people are obligated to donate to charity? And if not why do you think people are obligated to save others from drowning when they can but are not obligated to donate to charity?

It's a positive duty because it obliges you to act in a specific way. — Echarmion

I don’t have many of those. Outside of having to try and make up to someone after harming them you don’t really have to do anything morally speaking outside of just not harm people in my view.

If virtue is to act in accordance with a system of morality — Echarmion

Not for me. For me virtue is doing more good than the system demands without expecting any compensation for it.

There are almost unlimited ways to formulate rules/obligations/imperatives — Echarmion

Agreed

So, in your view, do you consider the expected harm a person being born will experience through life greater than the expected harm experienced by those who wish to have children if they follow antinatalism? — Pinprick

Yes but this is not just a “consideration” it’s a logical argument. If you say that a person experiences X harm due to not having children then all having children does is pushes this X harm onto one or more people (depending on how many children they have) unless THEY (the children) also have children. So the only way to avoid causing X or more harm is for people to reproduce forever. But I’m pretty sure we can agree that Adam and Eve experiencing X harm is less than all the suffering of humanity thus far. There is almost no case where procreation causes less harm than the harm due to not having children.

I’d also be interested to hear how you quantify harm. For example, is 1,000 people getting paper cut equal to one person breaking their leg? — Pinprick

I don’t think these questions are productive. I don’t put a number on it if that’s what you’re asking. I just compare alternatives.