It would be akin to starting a thread on the fact that I prefer chocolate to ice cream. — Isaac

I've seen crazier things on this site tbh

These threads are started by antinatalists telling the rest of us that we're mistaken about some issue. — Isaac

But in this case the issue isn't even directly related to antinatalism the title of the post isn't "we are wrong about this notion" but "Is this notion wrong". The first implication that this had anything to do with antinatalism was by you in the first place not shope. Which is why I say again: If it wasn't shope you probably wouldn't have minded.

Have you ever heard a teenager complain "I never asked to be born!" when asked by their parents to carry out some chore? Schop has unfortunately found a medium for dragging this pubescent whine into four and a half thousand posts. — Isaac

You started this discussion by asking me about my objection to schopenhauer1's positions. — Isaac

I started because I wanted to correct some of your understanding:

Just an interjection here. First off antinatalism doesn't say that.... — khaled

I never intended to convince you of anything only to show that the position is not some nonsensical bs as you were making it out to be. That there is a set of beliefs which consistently lead to it which aren't completely ridiculous but all have real consequences if absent.

Do you seriously think I could not look back over your posts and find examples of exactly the same issues? No. So lets drop the 'who wants to have the most serious conversation' crap. If you've got an actual concern about something I've said, raise it, with a quoted example, and I'll do my best to correct the issue. Otherwise characterising all opposition as just 'looking for a fight' is a weak defence. — Isaac

Fair enough. Sorry about that. I was pissed off IRL when I wrote the reply

The premise as it is used in antinatalism requires that there can be no exceptions, that thus rule is not applied pragmatically, but universally and above all others. — Isaac

Can you think of any other exceptions other than having children? If you want to have a moral rule with a single case exception that goes unexplained (or maybe it does though I wouldn't know how you would do it) go ahead but I don't want to do that.

Should such a bizarre and unlikely situation ever arise then it would create such an obligation. Luckily for us our moral intuitions are not a randomly occurring set of rules drawn from a book, but a muddled and fuzzy set loosely connected to our culture and biology so we needn't really plan for such odd eventualities. — Isaac

I don't really get the second part here after "an obligation" but you seriously think that people have an obligation to have children to keep their society afloat? I see it the other way around. Society, its rules and goals is made to keep the population afloat. It is a vehicle not a goal in itself.

You're prepared to sit there and judge the majority of the human race as having given no moral thought to the decision to start a family. On what grounds? — Isaac

That I haven't seen a parent yet who thought much about having kids. Most people I know just decided "Let's have 2 kids, no 3" without really putting much thought beyond that and whether or not they can afford it. People just feel obligated biologically and socially to have children and that's all the reason they seem to need. This is just my experience though.

Read the OP. It is not a investigative discussion about some philosophical issue. It is a direct, and at times pretty blunt, declaration that we (natalists) — Isaac

It is not directed at you (natalists). And as I said, even if shope is right here that doesn't lead to AN.

Had the OP been of the form "I hold X unusual premise to be true which you might not have heard of, what do you guys think?" I would have far less objection. — Isaac

The post literally has with "I am going to posit" or "I see as" at the beginning of each paragraph.

Antinatalists aren't just people who've decided not to have children. They're people who accuse others of having unjustifiably harmed their own children. only that it is an implication of labelling the having of children as causing unwarranted harm to them. — Isaac

ANs don't necessarily accuse though I know most do. In order to accuse someone of being morally "wrong" one must believe in some form of objective morality which I don't believe in. Can't speak for shope but I don't think he does either.

It is very difficult to see how you would get around the fact that avoiding a life (because it would not be worth the harm) and suggesting a life already lived is not worth the harm, seem to most people exactly the same proposition. Especially if you're suggesting you can do so without Benetar's asymmetry. — Isaac

As I said in my comment. The reason life is worth it when you're already here is because it is very painful to get out so continuing to live is the best option. The reason it is not worth it when you are considering bringing someone else in is because that someone else doesn't experience any sort of deprivation due to not having it. I don't see what's unclear. If you go back and read "edit" portion I don't think anything there didn't make sense or relied on the asymmetry.

"The disabled life is not worth creating" and " The disabled life is not worth having" are different how? — Isaac

In the case of creating: nothing happens if it goes uncreated. So the best option is to not risk harm. In the case of living there is a lot of harm experienced when commit suicide. So the best option is to live.

It's sort of like how even a bad movie is worth watching if you already bought the tickets and are close to the cinema. But it was not worth the tickets in the first place.

might make all fundamental beliefs equally valid. Maybe. But you keep acting as if I voluntarily launched an attack on antinatalism. The thread (and others like it) are launching an attack on natalism, I'm only defending the position. — Isaac

I think we both think the other is attacking our position when that is not the intention. At least I don't intend to attack natalism. It just sounded like you were doing exactly what you were accusing shope of doing. You bring antinatalism into the conversation then imply that there is an inconsistency in it by saying that "Many posts have responded to this already so stop posting it". That sounds like "This has already been proven false, move on". Just as long as you recognize that there are a set of fundamental beliefs that lead to antinatalism consistently then that's all I really expect, I don't care what you think beyond that. I don't think either shope or me are trying to attack natalism though I can't speak for him.

I thought we were done...

What is absent is any reason at all why we should think this way — Isaac

You can ask "But why should we think that" ad infinium for any position ever.

That it is morally acceptable to end the human race — Isaac

That's not the premise used. The premise used is: The suffering of the individual trumps the "goals" of a concept such as "the human race". Why should we believe that? Again, that is not an objection. All antinatalism has to do is be internally consistent for it to stand on par with other moral theories.

That absence of harm continues to be a moral good even in the absence of any humans to experience that absence. — Isaac

Not used. I think benetar's asymmetry (what you refer to here) is complete bs. Which shows, again, that you're arguing with a caricature not me. You have yet to even bother to ask what my argument for antinatalism is because I doubt you care. Because you seem to just want to have a yelling match over the internet rather than an actual conversation but I'll entertain you for a bit longer.

That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist. — Isaac

Do you think it is wrong to genetically engineer a child to be disabled? Probably yes. Why is that? What about engineering them to be geniuses?

I have yet to see someone answer "No, it is not wrong" to that question.

That absence of harm is a moral good, but absence of pleasure is not a moral bad — Isaac

Not used. The absence of both is neutral since there is no one to experience them. This is another form of the asymmetry which, again, you assume I use. Antinatalism has been around way before benetar.

That the rights of the individual trump the pursuit of other social objectives. — Isaac

This one is sometimes used. But not really. In order for something to be a "social objective" citizens of said society must believe it is worth pursuing. And if all said citizens were antinatalists then there would be no "social objectives" past a single generation. Heck if everyone on earth suddenly became an antinatalist "Ending the human race consentually" would become the social objective.

You make it sound like there exists a "checklist" for every society independent from the intentions of its members.

And what is the inverse of this premise? That everyone must have children even if they don't want to so that social objectives are accomplished, even if the parents don't want to pursue these apparently objective objectives? That sounds like it'd be way less popular to me.

The main proof of which (among others) is that most people consider it morally acceptable to have children. — Isaac

Most people don't think about the morality of it at all.

This is not the first such discussion and all that I've been involved with have ended in the same way. — Isaac

Okay so shope wants to talk about the same topic multiple times. Why do you take issue with that?

If you see someone arguing over and over about whether or not Jesus was resurrected would you care to intervene? I doubt it. You seem to take personal issue with these posts.

I see a lot of threads from the same people about anti-natalism. I see few about economic inequality, environmental issues, prejudice, human kindness... — Isaac

The number of threads relating to kindness posted on an online philosophy forum is not indicitive of the level of responsibility that a person has so please stop saying nonsense. If you want to make this claim please back it up with some actual evidence. And once backed up this claim is nothing short of a roundabout ad hominem. Even if me and shope are lifeless irresponssible morons that doesn't make the argument any more or less valid.

most people find this approach repugnant for other reasons - namely that it implies disabled people are living worthless lives on account of their disability — Isaac

Then you're not thinking of the same approach I'm thinking of. There is a difference between whether or not a life is worth continuing and whether or not it's worth starting. "Giving birth to people can harm them so don't do it" In no way implies "Your life is worthless because you're disabled". I am getting sort of tired of replying to willful misinterpretations like these so if I see one more I probably won't reply.

Edit: I have more time now so I'll explain a bit. Once someone exists who has the disability his options are:

1- Commit suicide - very painful
2- Keep living - usually a lot less painful

So it is worth it to keep living for him. Aka, life is worth continuing
But before such a person exists when someone is considering whether or not to have children his options are:

1- Have a child - risk of sever disability among other things
2- Don't have a child - nothing happens, good or bad

In this case, the safer option is obviously not to have the child. Aka, life is not worth starting.

Just because it is possible to cope with disability does not justify risking causing it in the first place.

What I've yet to hear is any support or justification for holding any of those five moral positions. — Isaac

Let's call a moral premise you believe in A. Why should we believe A? OH WAIT, don't answer, I don't actually care, let's call whatever you were about to say B. Why should we believe in B? OH WAIT, don't answer, I don't actually care, let's ca....

This is not an objection to antinatalism this is an objection to every belief ever. Best you can get out of asking this over and over is circular logic.

Similar to brain states and consciousness, I equate color and wavelength emitted — Pinprick

So how come you can imagine the color red without any photons entering your eyes?

I don’t need to know how you experience seeing a rock to know that it’s physical. — Pinprick

To know that the ROCK is physical not the "experience is physical" whatever that means.

Even if you’re trying to get at experience itself, it still must be physical, because it to is experienced. — Pinprick

So can I hold "the experience of seeing the color red" in my hand? Or can "the experience of seeing the color red" be propagated through a medium like a wave? Because if the answer is no to both of those questions then what exactly is "physical" about it?

Well I guess the conversation is over then? We can’t really get anywhere if you don’t have a counterview to mine.

Not me. It's been exhausting and I'm ready to let it settle for a while. — Srap Tasmaner

Same here to be honest. I don’t know why I keep commenting on these threads when it usually ends in both sides getting too tired to care. Just look at Issac. I don’t know how Shope does it

There is a mirror asymmetry, that no one benefits from anti-natalism. A person who is not born can no more benefit than they can be harmed. If no one is ever born again, eventually there is no one to benefit from your ethics.

An ethical proposal that by design benefits no one strikes me as paradoxical. — Srap Tasmaner

Absolutely correct. No one is benefited. But that is better than having many harmed.

because of mental illness or extreme mental duress — Srap Tasmaner

Saying "it's not a sound minded judgement" implies that objectively speaking life is always bearable for everyone which is not necessarily true. "They killed themselves because of a mental illness" is another way of saying "They hated life so much they went against their own survival instinct and decided to die".

From your side, the existence of conditions in which people take their own lives is unjustifiable, so it still counts. — Srap Tasmaner

I was just about to say that.

Major depression is a disease to be treated and managed; the stresses of life are something people need help to cope with — Srap Tasmaner

Fantastically put. But that doesn't justify bringing in more people just so they can cope. Why cause a problem that requires coping in the first place? Taking on challenges is fun and all but forcing others into a state where coping is required just to exist is a different matter entirely. What other situations is it considered acceptable to deprive someone forcefully so they can cope (aside from raising children but even that is just done to help them cope in the future)?

And so it goes with the hypothetical person at the center of it all. — Srap Tasmaner

There is no hypothetical person at the center of it all. There is just a simple premise that: Doing an act in the present that will result in harm to someone in the future is wrong even if that person doesn't exist in the present. Answer me this (and it's a bit of a ridiculous example I know but I don't have too much time right now): Why is it wrong for someone to plant a bomb that is set to explode in 15 years inside a fetus? (The timer is just to avoid the whole "Is a fetus a person" debate)

I can't know whether my hypothetical child wants to become real, whatever that could mean. — Srap Tasmaner

You can't know whether or not your child will experience a disproportionate amount of pain after they're born. So don't take the risk since you're not going to be the one paying the consequences. It is not about a "hypothetical child" whatever that means.

My child's life will be a red or a blue, it's just a matter of probability, and we can confidently assign probabilities to the different results, probabilities of a very vague sort like "> 0". What justification is ever offered for this absurd formalization? — Srap Tasmaner

"What justification is ever offered for this abusrd formalization?" What do you mean? Does it or does it not make sense should be the question. Why is formalization a problem.


You seem to find the whole argument abstract and wishy washy so let me ask you a couple of questions instead to make it more concrete. I'd prefer you answer these primarily:

Is it moral for a couple that finds out that they both have hidden genes that will result in their child having a severe mental/genetic illness to have children?

Why or Why not or Is there an arbitrary point at which you would consider that illness "bad enough" for them having children to be wrong?

The fact that people perceive the same phenomena differently has no bearing on whether or not the object is physical. — Pinprick

I'm not saying that the object is immaterial. I'm saying that "color" is not a physical property. "wavelength emitted" is. And that the experience of seeing color is fundamentally a different sort of thing from the wavelength that caused that experience.

I would claim whatever that difference is has to relate to consciousness. — Pinprick

And you would be correct. It relates to consciousness. It IS not somehow consciousness.

If you observe people hitting a tennis ball back and forth across a net, are you observing a game of tennis? — Pinprick

Yes but I'm not looking for a game of tennis I'm looking for the sensation of hitting the ball. I can't "observe" that no matter how many tennis matches I watch. I have only been able to observe it by hitting a tennis ball.

Is this just a thought experiment or are you talking about something real like major depression? — Srap Tasmaner

Can be seen as either.

That there is a non-zero chance your child will experience major depression therefore no one should ever have children? — Srap Tasmaner

Among other things but yes. The argument is that there is a non zero chance that they won't think their life was worth it.

Are we asking them at the end, "So, what'd you think? Worth it?" — Srap Tasmaner

We're not but the answer to that is what this concerns. There is a non zero chance that at the end of their lives they won't think it was worth it overall. Or they commit suicide, in whichcase the answer to the question is a very clear "no"

My cockamamie ideas are not under discussion here. — Srap Tasmaner

It's just that you seem to find "Do what you think will minimize harm" so ridiculous that I wondered how you operate in these situations.

I think my oldest son almost hated his existence for a little while in the Spring. He's a musician and had begun thinking that live music might never be a thing again. Pretty depressing stuff for a young man to deal with. He's in fine form these days.

Generally speaking, I don't know. One or two of the kids tend a little toward melancholia, but it's just personality not pathology. So far as I can tell, there's neither mental illness nor despair among my children, though the ones that are old enough have had their moments. Mostly they are wild, creative, gutsy, fascinating little and not so little people. — Srap Tasmaner

This doesn't address the question.

Having and then raising children is not spinning a roulette wheel or something, just one action and then you get the result: loves life, hates life, mostly hates life, mostly neutral, ... Like it's on a scale from 1 to 7. That's not my experience of life or of raising children, or the experience of anyone I know. There is no result, so no risk of the result being one thing or another. We're just alive. — Srap Tasmaner

The "result" is whether or not your children would rather have not been born. In other words whether or not the "deal" that is life ended up panning out for them in their eyes. That is how you evaluate the consequences of an action right? Thankfully, your children seem to be doing fine. But I'm asking what would you do IF your child did have a severe mental/genetic illness? Whose fault was it that life is so difficult for him/her? And are you responsible for it or not? Saying "my children are doing fine" does not address this.

Parents don't just guess how things will turn out, they work at it, they take responsibility. — Srap Tasmaner

That doesn't remove the risk of suffering. "I will take a risk with someone else's life becaues I will then try as hard as I can to reduce their suffering" still is not a good enough justification for me.

If you told my kids that I harmed them by bringing them into the world without their consent — Srap Tasmaner

You didn't harm them overall though. So that's why they'd think the idea is stupid. Overall life was a good deal for them. It's more like "You risked harming them by bringing them into the world without their consent". I think they'd find that idea a lot less stupid. There is a non zero chance they would have still hated every minute of their lives despite your best effort be it due to genetic/mental illness or some accident, etc, etc.

Are you seriously attributing to me, standing at the site of a car crash, the ability to correctly calculate the conditional probability of a crash victim's future happiness drawing on my knowledge of established base rates of happiness among people with traumatic injuries that resulted in disability? And this is what I do to overcome the requirement that I seek his consent before saving his life?

If he's conscious but bleeding out, do I still ask for his consent to save him, or do the calculations anyway? Should I discount because he's likely in shock and just apply pressure to his open wound, even if tells me to let him die? No, wait, I need to calculate the conditional probability that he would later endorse his own withholding of consent while in shock, again considering my knowledge of the base rate of changes of heart among people who were saved having asked not to be. — Srap Tasmaner

Basically. I don't expect you to pull out a calculator. This is just another way of saying "I expect you to choose the option that you think minimizes harm done" which isn't really an unusual thing to ask. How would YOU go about deciding in all these situations actually? Ignore everything I have argued, how many variables would YOU try to process?

Gotta say, it's starting to look I'd best just stay out of it. — Srap Tasmaner

But then you still have to do the calculations on what will happen if you stay out of it :razz: Assuming there is some harm that you would be responsible for and so can't just sit back and watch happen. Example: A life guard choosing not to rescue people.

But I did violate their rights back when they didn't exist yet, so shame on me. Oh and their mom, she did too. We'll apologize, but I'm pretty sure they're cool with it. — Srap Tasmaner

Now you're getting it :wink:

Of course, as soon as they were born I took all the rest of their autonomy away. Their mom too, we both did. And we still haven't given all of it back. Thing is though, the kids did get parents in exchange, and I think they're mostly happy with the deal. — Srap Tasmaner

Let me ask you this. If they weren't happy with the deal whose fault is it? And should we pretend that this risk is non existent or that it is not worth considering?

Do you think this might be a pretty common situation? You know, I violate a non-existent person's rights by bringing them into the world, and I continue to violate their rights for years, but in return I accept considerable responsibility for their well-being, at least up until the point where they're ready and willing to take if not all then most of that responsibility themselves? — Srap Tasmaner

I have no doubt that it's common. But it is not always the case.

That could be a reasonable set-up couldn't it? — Srap Tasmaner

No not really. What do you do if your kids hate their existence? What gives you the right to take that risk in the first place? To say "I'll take a risk at harming others because it'll probably turn out okay" is not enough of a justifaction for me. Especially when it can get so bad.

I'm not trying to attack you here but you're the one that brought your kids into the argument.

It's against the idea that such a position is somehow a logical conclusion from commonly held premises — Isaac

We can debate whether or not they are commonly held but if that's your opposition, and you don't think the premises are commonly held, then sure I don't have an issue.

knowing full-well that at some point the argument relies upon an intuition which is not commonly held. — Isaac

Again, why don't you specify what you mean? You are saying nothing unless you do so. And since when is an uncommon intuition false?

The only reason I can think of for such a practice is the hope of 'recruiting' people who've not noticed this hidden premise — Isaac

Or simply that the antinatalist does not think his premise is hidden at all or that his argument is flawed and just wants to talk about it on an online free philosphy forum? I don't really care what you think shope is doing though. As long as you're fine with antinatalism existing then what we're both doing is just wasting our time.

or griping about the world without actually having to bear any responsibilty for doing anything about it. — Isaac

I hear this a lot from people as if it were an opposition to antinatalism somehow. Since when does not having kids imply you don't want to bear any responsiblity for the world? Since when were people obligated by responsibiltiy to have kids?

Are you suggesting that there's been no opposition to anti-natalist arguments on the grounds of faulty logic? — Isaac

None that you have presented. And none that have seemed reasonable to me from what I saw.

That's not 'reasoning' — Isaac

The 'reasoning' bit is whether or not you consider procreation a form of harming others.

Why is it "self-deception" to choose one starting premise, but coldly rational to choose the other? — Isaac

I didn't say coldly rational. It's just that I can't pretend to believe that procreation causes 0 harm or that "the interests of humanity", trump actual real life suffering.

Where have I contradicted one of my premises? — Isaac

Sorry, that was a mistake.

You can't just ascribe some moral intuitions to mere self-deceptive preferences — Isaac

I don't mean to say they are OBJECTIVELY self deceptive in nature. It's just that I would be tricking myself if I said I believed them.

From where are you getting this sharp distinction such that 'not harming others' is some objective moral code divorced from your personal preferences, but continuing the human race is some trivial preference akin to preferring vanilla to chocolate ice-cream. — Isaac

Both are preferences. Neither are objective. But for ME one is much more basic than the other. I have never implied that one is objective and the other isn't. If for you the survival of humanity is a good enough reason to harm others you do you. Though I will think that that's a stupid belief.


Anyways I'm sort of getting tired of this thread. Believing in moral relativism and then attempting to mount an attack against a moral position is basically like a discussion of whether or not you prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream.

And how do we decide which of these clashing axioms trumps which? — Isaac

As I said, by reasoning from even more basic axioms. For me "It is okay to risk harming others" is much harder to believe than "It is not okay to have kids". Therefore when it comes to procreation, the former wins, since I consider procreation a form of risking harming others.

Yes. If you were working out the length of timber needed for a table cross brace using trigonometry and you got the answer 204m would you unquestioningly proceed to the timber yard and ask for a 204m length of timber for you furniture project, or would you presume you'd makde a mistake somewhere in the calculations? — Isaac

The difference here is that in the case of antinatalism the logic has been revised over and over and the premises do directly lead to the conclusion. And what you are proposing is changing the premises to get a different conclusion. Which is perfectly valid in ethics, but I would rather not do that (because as I said it reeks of self deception)

Therefore it must be OK to cause harm without consent. — Isaac

What? Complete non sequitor. You could say "Therefore it must be OK to cause harm without consent in this paticular case because I believe the "right" to have children trumps the child's right not to be harmed" and that would make sense. But you can't just contradict one of your own premises in the conclusion.

So how come the 'true' conclusion changes depending on which intuition I start with? — Isaac

Because, as I said, we all have different "amounts" of these intuitions. My intuition that I shouldn't cause harm trumps my intuition that I should have children. Because the former is much more basic. It was much easier for me to believe that having children is not okay vs believing that harming people is completely fine. And I suspect that that is the case for you too. Because although you think that having children is fine you probably don't think that harm without consent is fine. The key difference is that you don't see having children as causing any kind of harm while I see that as self deception. Especially since we have many cases where having children is immoral, for exmaple if you have a terrible genetic disease.

a minute ago it was all "2+2=4" — Isaac

No. A minute ago it was all: "You can't just tell yourself that 2+2 does not equal 4 just because you don't like the fact that it is even though the logic adds up." That's all I was saying.

intuitions can all be right or all wrong — Isaac

As I said before. Intuitions are not right or wrong. Intuitions tell us what to do in different moral situations. However they are not specific about which is applied when. So for example, we all have the intuition "It is wrong to steal from innocents" and the intuition "Benefiting yourself is good". So most of us don't steal. However if you consider everyone living in a capitalist society is already a thief and a scoundrel, stealing will come much more easily to you since the people you're stealing from are no longer innocent so the intuition doesn't apply.

Having children. — Isaac

Is that your only example? Because if it is then that's my problem. I can't live my whole life abiding by certain moral codes and then just make an exception in one spot because I feel like it.

How can I possibly know, especially if he's just been in a car crash, whether he will consider the rest of his life good or bad? — Srap Tasmaner

You can't. But you know statistically that the majority of people are not pianists. And you know statistically that most people with disabiliites learn to live with them in a couple of months or years. So you can surmise that it is more likely that this person would want to be saved.

All your other "or"s can be adressed in such a manner. If I had known that the person was a pianist for example that would add some complexity to the situation. But you didn't give me any extra info.

I do not rely on somehow knowing what the future holds for the person I save but simply on knowing that it is more likely they'd see being saved as a benefit. Work with the information that you have.

I can deny responsibility for his death all I like. — Srap Tasmaner

Responsibility =/= consequences. I said there are CONSEQUENCES to passivity not that you're responsible for those consequences. In the case of the car crash I see it as: You are not responsible to save him but saving him is not immoral (for reasons stated above).

Or I could agree and say the only way to be sure I am not, no matter my intent, causing more suffering in the world, is to have no dealings with other people at all — Srap Tasmaner

And then you would simply be incorrect. Inactivity is a form of activity. Choosing not to save a drowning person WILL MOST LIKELY cause more harm in comparison to save him. That is an example of causing suffering even though you're not responsible for it and can't be blamed for it.

In my view the damage that you're responsible for is a subset of the damage you cause. The distinguishing factor is: Would the damage have still been done if you had not intervened. If the answer is yes then you're not resonsible but you still cause the damage by choosing not to intervene.

But I may still have a negative effect on others, however indirectly, just by living, and the only way to be sure I'm not doing harm, no matter my intent, is to make sure that I do not exist. — Srap Tasmaner

But that would still be doing more harm most likely. Suicide is most often the more harmful option to yourself (which counts) and others.

But are you saying I must only make these obvious short term calculations? — Srap Tasmaner

No. I just gave a single variable for simplicity. These:

wondering about what those involved think of their lives? Or guessing what might be awaiting them around the corner? Or speculating about the effect they have on others? — Srap Tasmaner

Should also be considered. And in the car crash example you gave all I had was "Man in accident save or no save?". So I have to use the info that I have, that being that it is more likely for the general population that not saving is the worse option therefore consent to save is not required (because it's the safer option)

2. Do nothing: no effect. — Srap Tasmaner

Not in this case. And not in most cases. This is what I'm saying. Doing nothing to the guy in the car crash scene will result in his death. Passivity has consequences.

(impossible to calculate) — Srap Tasmaner

Numerically, yes it's impossible. But relative to other actions it is possible. For example if you have to kill one innocent person vs kill 5 innocent people you can't sit there and say "Gee, I can't tell which is better because this is impossible to calculate"

Your position suggests that there is no issue here at all, that it is absolutely immoral to perform CPR. — Srap Tasmaner

So the alternatives are:

1- Perform CPR: very low chance of harm, very high chance of benefit
2- Don't perform CPR: very high chance of harm, very low chance of benefit (that is counting successful suicide as a benefit)

Both alternatives are "risky" but one is clearly more risky. Consent is required when it is a "risky" alternative vs a "safe" or "safer" alternative and you want to perform the riskier one. That is not the case here. Whereas for procreation it is:

1- Have children: low chance of them leading a life they hated (overall negative), high chance of them leading a life they find meaningful (overall positive)
2- Don't have children: Nothing

So you would need consent to have children here because it is more risky than not. It's not that it's very risky, we don't life in a terrible insufferable world, it's just more risky.

I still think you ought to behave a certain way, it doesn't stop being about how others ought to behave. I just don't think there's a logical method by which I can derive that feeling. — Isaac

See, you THINK I ought to behave a certain way. Now I have no complaints. It sounded like you were objectvely saying antinatalism should be changed.

How do you propose to debate whether an axiom is 'correct'? What measures would we judge it by? — Isaac

Even more base axioms. What shope is doing for example is clashing multiple intuitions against each.

It needs the axiom that annihilating humanity is an acceptable conclusion — Isaac

Wait, so when you argue for a conclusion, one of your premises has to be "This conclusion is acceptable?". So if you want to find the sum of 2 and 2 but you think "2+2=4" is an unacceptable conclusion then 2+2 does not equal 4?

There is no such thing as "acceptable conclusion". You start with premises and you reason through them. And whatever you get at the end is true as long as the premises and logic are true. The truth value of an argument does not change because one thinks the conclusion is unacceptable.

b) intuitions like the ones you start from are to be taken seriously - in which case the clash involved in your conclusion should indicate that your logic has gone very wrong somewhere. — Isaac

Not really. Why would a clash of intuitions somehow lead to a logical inconsistency? Our intuitions are not non contradictory. Our brains are not as brittle as a logical system. They can handle some amount of internal inconsistency.

It's quite an unusual principle that one's personal emotional response is what provides the basis for rights — Isaac

That's not the argument. The argument is that my right to have children provided by the intrinsic value of human life is trumped by the child's right not to be harmed. And I think most people would agree that in MOST cases, the right of an individual not to be harmed trumps most other "rights" unless said individual is harming others. Tell me of a situation where harming others is considered acceptable other than self defence, and when the alternative to not harming a few individuals is harm to many individuals.

I am aware a child doesn't exist until they're had but the rights of a hypothetical person must also be respected. Which is why, for example, planting a bomb with a 15 year timer in a fetus is wrong. Even though at the time of the action no one existed to have right not to be harmed.

It is only necessary that suffering is outweighed by pleasures — Isaac

Agreed. And currently we cannot know that for any given child.

Fine. How would you feel about the prospect of the entire human race becoming extinct? — Isaac

Pretty sad. Not as sad as seeing someone going through severe depression though.

then later when your conclusions clash with other intuitions (here, that annihilating the human race is a bad thing) claim to have demonstrated those second intuitions to be thus wrong — Isaac

That you personally might have no issue with that — Isaac

First off, intuitions are neither right or wrong, we all have different "amounts" of them. And secondly I never said that the prospect of human extinction doesn't make me sad. You just expected I would because you have some preconceived notion about all antinatalists and you are arguing with that caricature rather than actually trying to reach a conclusion with the person you're talking to.

It's just that I don't think the sadness that I will feel over human extinction gives me a right to have a child to prevent it. Because that's just another form of harming someone ELSE to alleviate MY sadness. And worst part is, that child will ALSO likely be saddned at the prospect and so pass the harm on to someone else ad inifnium (That's why a "logo" for antinatalism that I see often is a broken circle with the letter A breaking it). If we were to quantify sadness due to extinction as (x) then the choice is "Experience x or likely inflict way worse than x on a member of your family tree"

Yes, I absolutely can. That's the whole point of moral relativism — Isaac

What I interpreted was you saying "You can hold any position you want but you shouldn't hold that position because it's objectively bad". If you had said "You can hold any position you want butI think antinatalism is some fundamentally depressed and messed up philosophy that should be exorcised" I would have had no issue with that. But you are implying that somehow DESPITE moral relativism being the case than one should not be an antinatalist.

Using moral relativism to undermine an ethical position doesn't really work because it undermines all ethical positions not just the one you take issue with. Instead of knocking down a building you move the whole playing field downwards.

You can debate the validity of a conclusion presuming shared axioms and an agreement as to what constitutes a rational step and what doesn't. — Isaac

And what shope is trying to do is trying to debate whether or not a shared axiom is correct. I don't see a problem with that. If someone makes a post about how he thinks god doesn't exist you wouldn't mind that would you (I know we don't have many theists here but it is still a commonly held axiom in the general population)?

Mind you you don't need the axiom that "Self inflicted pain is still unjustified" to argue for antinatalism at all which is why I'm saying that you likely wouldn't have even minded the post if it wasn't shope's

Here the argument is based on some flimsy logic applied to unpopular axioms and the consequence is the end of humanity forever. — Isaac

As I said before (and you conveniently ignored), the axioms antinatalism needs are not unpopular at all. And I don't think the logic is flimsy. I don't like replying to empty statements that are just blurted out like these so if you want to argue this then I ask you to at least present the unpopular axioms and why you think the logic is flimsy or you've effectively said nothing.

The argument here, and in previous such posts, is that we cannot alleviate suffering by our actions toward each other sufficiently to overcome the advocacy of doing so by avoiding procreation. — Isaac

Yes.

That either implies that avoiding birth is the only way to alleviate suffering, or the human life is so trivial a thing that we need not consider its extinction a good reason to seek alternative methods. — Isaac

But I don't think this part is correct. The first "implication" is a reasonable position to hold already, and doesn't rely on the above argument really. We know of no way to alleviate suffering 100% nor have we even come close to it. No matter how much easier we make life suffering seems to still be there. Right now, even among people who have no material difficulties, have loving parents, etc, there still seems to be suffering.

And the second "implication" is not implied. If you offer an antinatalist a button that makes sure no children will ever be born again and a button that makes earth a utopia he would pick the utopia without hesitation. It's not so much that there is not a good reason to seek alternative methods as: We have no right to force others to seek alternative methods without even knowing if they are possible just because we want said methods.

How would you feel if you were born into some dystopian society forced to work to the bone, hating your life and it was all justified by: "Your great great great grandchildren MAY not experience suffering". A bit of an extreme example just to illustrate the point.

You're not compelled by unassailable logic to look at things the way you do. — Isaac

This is the case for every single ethical argument. So why do you have such a problem with this one?

And might I add that the main premises antinatalism relies on are already adopted widely:
1- Life has suffering in it
2- It is wrong to inflict suffering on others without consent
3- Commiting an act in the present which one knows will result in harm in the future for someone else without their consent is still wrong (EX: setting a bear trap in a public park)

Those are really all you need to argue for antinatalism.

Anyone in their right mind would see that as a sign they might have taken a wrong turn somewhere. — Isaac

You are not compelled by unassailable logic to look at things the way you do :wink:

Why? This is the question I'm really getting at. Why would you do this. We've just established that the axioms which lead you here are chosen voluntarily. Yes, if you choose to look at things a certain way you could logically end up with anti-natalism — Isaac

"Why not?" is a possible answer. You cannot on one hand stress how moral interpretations are subjective and baseless and on the other hand try to imply that this particular interpretation should be changed to a "better" interpretation.

Mine is: "Other interpretations reek of self-deception to me. To pretend that one is completely not responsible for their child's suffering just because they tried their best to raise him/her is something I can't do. And I don't think life is an easy enough or short enough undertaking so as to force people through it who may not want to." But since I recognize that this is a personal view I don't spend time trying to convince others of it so unlike many antinatalists I would NOT press the "Instant global vasecomy button".

And I don't think shope is really trying to recruit here. It is very common for people to post on this site to debate the beliefs they already hold. This post isn't even exactly about antinatalism, and as you said, even though this post implies that all suffering is unjustified to some extent, you don't have to take that and argue for antinatalism as a result. IMO you probably just think shope is recruiting because he's known for being an antinatalist and if some other member posted this you wouldn't react this way.

I understand what you're saying yet thinking that these are the implications of an antinatalist's line of argument just means you don't understand the line of argument or you've heard a bad one.

So the fact that it doesn't say "that non-existence is the ONLY way to avoid suffering" is irrelevant if that's what the arguments imply. — Isaac

The fact that it doesn't specifically mention the sanctity of human life is irrelevant if undermining it is what the arguments imply. — Isaac

Where is this implied? Which part of the argument can be used to reach this conclusion? I asked you this already and you didn't asnwer.

I think you're saying "implies x" where it's more like "sounds vaguely close to x from a quick skim of the arguments". The way you use the term, it would not surprise me if next you say "Veganism implies that animal lives are more valuable than human lives" or something like that.

a cult advocating that non-existence is the only way to avoid suffering — Isaac

Just an interjection here. First off antinatalism doesn't say that non-existence is the ONLY way to avoid suffering and secondly it is not the goal of antinatalism to avoid suffering but merely not to inflict it. If you knew you child would cure cancer an antinatalist would still say that having them is wrong. Even though having them would relieve more suffering.

If I were to strongly advocate that immigrants should be steralised and imprisoned, do you think I can really wash my hands of any violence against immigrants which then ensues by claiming "well, I never actually advocated violence"? — Isaac

That is already advocating violence (what with the forced improsonment and all) so no. Antinatalists do not advocate suicide.

arguing that all human life is worse less than nothing. — Isaac

When was that implied? It is very easy to look at a philosophical position like materialism and blurt out something like "sO YoU'Re sAyiNg wE'Re AlL jUsT MAchinEs???" when the reality is often much more complicated. I think that's exactly what you're doing here.

sanctity of human life — Isaac

No matter how sanctified human life is all that serves to do is to make a case against murder, assault, etc. No amount of sanctity will make an argument FOR having children without sounding ridiculous. "Human life is so sanctified each person must at least have 3 children" sounds pretty ridiculous no? Bringing up sanctity of human life here is like providing a proof for the the sum of angles in a triangle in a debate about free will. Completely unrelated even though it's correct.

My main point is that people often view suffering as external, and exclude suffering made by oneself through poor decision-making. — schopenhauer1

I would say that it's not fair to put ALL of your suffering on being forced to play the game. Birth is the first cause of all suffering but not the only cause. Currently people don't count suffering they inflict on themselves as suffering at all but I don't think it's fair to go from that to counting all suffering as a direct result of being born. If you lost your house due to a volcano I'd understand blaming the game, but if you sold your house at a less than ideal price I'd say it's not fair to blame the game solely.

And since you're already part of the game I'd say there is no point in blaming anything on the game because that pragmatically makes the situation worse even if it makes sense. But anyways this isn't really philosophy I'm just talking about attitude towards life in general.

It's like the analogy you give about being thrown into a game you didn't ask for and perhaps can't play well (for a variety of reasons). Except this game is inescapable. Poor decisions are part of the ecological landscape of being born at all, just like natural disasters. — schopenhauer1

You misunderstand. I agree that all pain and distress is unjustified ultimately. But I also think that it is best to act as if it was not in personal life. If I see the world as a dark and cruel place where I suffer no matter what I do I won't do anything, which will only confirm my paranoia. So I choose to not think that way. It is the only way to play the game well now that I'm stuck in it. However that doesn't justify me forcing other people to play just because I found a way to make the game bearable which may or may not work for them.

I’m terrified of people who are only moral because if they’re not they’ll get punished. It seems that genuine morality is impossible with the constant threat of hell. What will they do if God instructs them to murder and torture I wonder?

So I don’t see what this proves. — Pinprick

I’m not “proving” anything. I’m explaining what the word “mind” means.

Redness is still a physical property — Pinprick

Incorrect. Colorblind people will see green when looking at a red object for example. Physical properties include things like “wavelength emitted”, “length”, “mass”, etc. All physical properties can be measured in a way that everyone agrees on the measurement. However color is not like that. Two people can look at the same object and not perceive the same color. They can see the same wavelength is being emitted, but not the same color. That is an example of an object that is identical in physical properties producing different qualia. Another more common example is disagreement on what something tastes like.

Yeah, because we’re unable to visualize, or imagine particular wavelengths, etc — Pinprick

For the same reason as above, color and wavelength are different. Everyone can agree on wavelength without agreeing on color.

I would say we can observe consciousness when we observe brain activity. — Pinprick

If you’re proposing that consciousness IS brain activity then that is demonstrably false. We have more brain activity while sleeping but we’re not “more conscious”.

We are able to correctly predict whether or not someone is conscious by observing brain states, right? — Pinprick

I’m not even sure that’s true and regardless “observing brain states” is different from “observing consciousness”. The former to the latter is like measuring a radio wave vs listening to the channel.

Is someone claiming that the pain and distress of being born is justified because the fetus chose to be born? — Srap Tasmaner

Isn’t all pain and distress a result of being born? Because it seems to me like you’re saying all pain and distress is unjustified.

I’m not doubting consciousness, only that it derives from “mind” as opposed to brain. — Pinprick

"mind" is the experience of qualia. You cannot explain to someone what the color red looks like without showing them the color red. Even if someone knows everything there is to know scientifically about the color red (it's wavelength, appearances in nature, etc) they will not know what the color red looks like without seeing the color red.

Consciousness is that thing which experiences these qualia.

Both have not been observed by the senses (no one has smelled tasted, seen, touched or heard consciousness yet). Both are definitely noticable in real life (that you experience qualia and that there is a "you" experiencing qualia are things you cannot deny unless you're a philosophical zombie) but have yet to even be approached by the scientific method.

This is why I posit that the valid point you are raising is covered by my point about ignorance in relation to outcomes. — Tzeentch

Yes but you say that if someone had the right intentions but was ignorant and so caused harm, that person is not immoral. But I say, no, they are immoral if they purposely did not ask for consent before doing the act. That’s the only difference

Isn't this covered by ignorance, though? — Tzeentch

I don't know what "this" is.

And if someone successfully manages to help someone else, isn't consent implied here? — Tzeentch

No I don't think so. If I buy a new suit for you with your credit card without asking and luckily you actually had an interview soon and your suit had been stolen or something, I have helped you, but I didn't do something right, and I still didn't have your consent. The reason being that buying the suit had a higher expected harm than not buying the suit (unless you were looking for a suit I would just be wasting your money) so I shouldn't have bought the suit even though it panned out.

The probem with "helping others" is you don't know if you're being an actual help or if you're harming them in some way, that's why I think "help" without consent is wrong even if it pans out (even if I just saved your interview I still shouldn't have bought that suit without asking)

huh. Might pick that up then. Can’t seem to find an audiobook though :confused:

I don't get all this self-actualization and lesser-people talk. It sounds way too poetic to be real. Anyways if you're asking how to not care about what people think about you, there is no way to do it in a day. It's a process. Disclaimer: I am not a mental health specialist. Just saying what I found works. Usually the reason people care what others think is because they're scared of the consequences of what happens when they have a bad reputation or they have low self esteem (usually both). This is especially the case if you got bullied as a kid. The reason is that people with low self esteem try to get it from others' approval which never works in the long term. You have to learn to be unaffected even if the whole world thinks you're an idiot.

So what I do is:

1- Go back over conversations where you were offended and try to find alternate meanings to what was said. Maybe not everyone is trying to attack you all the time.
2- Learn to ignore people sometimes. I don't know if you do this too but I used to always take any insult or even joke as serious criticism. It's been getting better but I still do it.
3- Stop comparing yourself to others, whether or not they're doing better or worse.
4- Talk to people about it (friends family/ online chats for this thing)
5- Make more discussions on this forum. If you're on edge all the time then people arguing against your position will sound like an attack and users here don't mince their words so being in this environment will train you to not care about others' opinions as much.

Both promises fixed salvation. — praxis

But one says you can get it right here and now by fixing your own mind and the other says that this world is doomed and terrible specifically to test you so that you can get the fixed version after you die.

You don't seriously think that Buddhism only promises an attitude adjustment, do you? — praxis

Yes I do. Then again as I said I'm only really familiar with zen and I am saying what zen people say about buddhism.

I just want to clarify though that I'm not demonizing Western religions or anything. I just think they have fundamentally different approaches. And I think they complement each other.

You tell me! — Heiko

I told you already. It's an observation. You disagree. So YOU tell me what you think it is.

If it was an observation empirical science would not be the enemy, right? — Heiko

I don't see how this makes sense. When did I say "empirical science is the enemy" first of all?

Are you implying that if something is not explained by empricial science it is not an observation? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Empirical science is the attempt at explaining observations. If it can't explain an observation you can't just pretend the observation doesn't exist.

Qualia has yet to be explained by empirical science. That doesn't make it not an observation. It's so weird to me that people would rather pretend that they are zombies than admit that a purely materialistic view of the world doesn't make sense. To be honest it makes me think "Maybe this people really experience no qualia" sometimes. Looking at you daniel dennett.

"I exist" is not an observation? What is it then?

No this is false, the main thing is to realize emptiness. — praxis

Which is what happens in the effort of trying to understand how your mind works

Buddhist teachers are not psychoanalysts — praxis

I didn’t say they were

psychotherapy similar to modern CBT. This is not the same as phsychoanalysis. — praxis

My mistake then

This is just a weird and confused way of saying that religious life is spiritual and secular life is materialistic. There is no difference between East and West in this regard — praxis

It is a way of saying that fundamentally Eastern “religions” and western religions are different in how they present “salvation”. Eastern religions try to fix your attitude towards life while western religions claim that there is a fixed version of life that you can go into if you pass this “test” that is this current life.

I don’t know how you got that from what I wrote.

I guess you've never heard of the 'hell realms' or being reborn as a scarabaeinae (dung beetle). — praxis

To be honest I completely forgot about the whole reincarnation bit. I’m mostly familiar with Zen Buddhism (and not that familiar at that) where reincarnation isn’t really emphasized. And there are other schools of Buddhism that say that reincarnation isn’t a literal reincarnation after death but more like a metaphor for change.

To sum, your heart appears to have been pierced by the seductive arrow of Eastern Mysticism, a rather common affliction in the West. — praxis

Probably. I don’t know if you can really count meditation as “mysticism” though. I don’t buy incarnation or reading the stars if that’s what you’re alluding to.

I don’t think intention is enough. I think it should be intention and consent. So if someone tries to “help” me by buying me a brand new suit with my credit card because he thought it would help he’s still in the wrong. As long as there is the “expected harm” (chance of harm x magnitude of harm) of doing something is comparable to the expected harm of not doing it consent should be required regardless of intention. So it’s fine to save someone from being run over for examples because the expected harm of doing so is almost nothing in comparison to the expected harm of not doing so.

To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist — Pinprick

Then you’d be a robot which I doubt you are. I never get materialists doubting their own consciousness. Not very scientific of you to ignore the most fundamental observation that preceded all others “I, a MIND, exist”. I never get theories that try to say the mind is the brain. You can say the mind is caused by the brain but you can’t say the mind is the brain. As rogueAI said, you can talk meaningfully about minds without knowing how brains work.

I used to wonder that until I stopped wondering it and that seems to make it go away. That seems to be the solution for most “philosophical angst”. I used to get periods where I’d be super anxious about how the world could be deterministic and nothing I do matters once every 3 months on the dot. Then I’d spend one month exactly to try to resolve the issue which either ends in me reaching a new conclusion or giving up. Funnily enough, both outcomes had the same effect, until 3 months later.

It seems to me that doing philosophy is the worst way to get rid of philosophical angst. Occasionally you get a complete shift in thought which will settle your issues for a while but it’s very rare. Best thing to do is to just do something practical for a while and actually do philosophy when there is no emotional charge behind it. I find the most of the time you try to untangle philosophical angst by doing philosophy you only make it worse but when you ignore it for a while and approach the subject when you’re not emotionally attached that leads to actual shifts in thought.

No they DON’T know that there is an eternity. That’s what I’m saying.

Eternity is part of the beliefs of positive nihilism. — xinye

I don’t think so. If I remember correctly Nietzsche only proposed eternal reoccurrence as a “measure” of how well one likes their own life. It was something along the lines of “If after you died the devil told you that you are about to experience the exact same life again would you be depressed or happy”. I don’t think he ever said that it’s what actually happens.

And it seems to me that a necessary condition of requiring consent for risky actions when we do them unto others is that the other must first exist. — NOS4A2

It doesn't seem to me that way. It seems to me the requirement must be that the person exists at the time the risky action will affect them. The problem with birth is that the person exists, by definition, at the same time as the risky action will affect them (birth) in this case so it makes it difficult to understand what to do.

Why would it be wrong to genetically engineer children to be crippled for example? In the same way, at the time the action is taken no one exists to be harmed. So that makes it right? What about implanting a fetus with a bomb that blows up once the child reaches 15? Again, no one existed to be harmed at the time the bomb was planted.

seeks some round-about praise for his masturbatory activities. — NOS4A2

I think I've explained this concept to you at least 10 times by now on the other thread but again. An antinatalist doesn't see not having kids as good. He only sees having kids as bad. In the same way a sane person wouldn't consider "not shooting people" good but would consider shooting people bad. And antinatalism isn't even against sex.