I'm still trying to articulate this more clearly, but I'd like to ask you, can you define what it is that makes not imposing harms from scratch (for someone else) more ethically relevant than not causing benefits from scratch (for someone else)? — schopenhauer1

I lean strongly towards there being an ethical duty not to cause harm to others.

I don't believe there to be an ethical duty to cause good to others, because it would come with too many problems. It would imply a duty to meddle in other people's affairs, a duty to get involved in literally everything one possibly can, because not to cause good would be to neglect one's moral duty. People rarely (if ever) have a complete understanding of a given situation, so not only is the implication one MUST meddle, but also that one must do so with little more than ignorance as a basis. After all, all one has is one's subjective understanding.

Further, not to cause harm is an effort by the actor not to take actions that interfere with the will of a subject. To endeavor to cause all the good one can is to interfere regardless of the will of a subject.

Lastly, earlier in this thread I argued for non-interference being a morally neutral option. That means inaction is morally acceptable, even if it means potentially missing out on causing good. This flows from the first point, namely that if non-interference is not acceptable when there's a potential for good, it becomes a moral imperative to interfere in everything, with all the problems that brings.
And second, non-interference causes no harm.

Why is it that if someone already existed and I forced them to play my game of limitations and harms with some good, THAT would be roundly rejected, but if I created someone from scratch (let's say snapped my fingers) THAT is considered fine and dandy? — schopenhauer1

I agree, this seems inconsistent. I've been using my sky-diving example to inquire about this very same question.

What you're after is objective morality, absolute authority. — baker

Ideally, yes. But in the absence of such sound, consistent reasoning will do.

Self-confidence, a "lust for life" are what gives a person the idea they have a right to procreate, ie. make such a decision for someone else in the first place. — baker

A very literal answer to my question, but ok.

Does it suffice?

If we can justify making a major imposition on someone else based on self-confidence, then that would open the door for a whole slew of behaviors that most would consider immoral.

What if I push someone off a building because I was extremely confident they were suicidal and wanted to make an end to their life?

Of all the evils of government, forcing individuals to kill and die is by far the worst.

“It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.” — NOS4A2

What a strange policy.

Voting lends legitimacy to a system, so essentially they're forcing their citizens to acknowledge the system as legitimate. An odd flirtation with tyranny.

If one doesn't vote because they do not wish to acknowledge the legitimacy of a system, that seems to me like a perfectly viable position to take.

We don't take kindly to people inquirin' 'bout climate change 'round these places.

Ok, sure.

But now turn that into something we can work with. Otherwise I'm left to guess what you think the implications are.

Suppose we do exist prior to birth as a human. What then? Would you not be depriving someone of joy by not letting him/her go to a fun-filled party ? — Agent Smith

While this supposition is obviously a bit of a stretch, I would say the following:

1). Just like the procreator has no right to decide for another they should play the game of life, neither does a person (who in this hypothetical exists prior to birth) have a right to demand it.

2). Life is not always a fun-filled party.

3). Since this ties into the earlier discussion, it's worth pointing out that even in this hypothetical, not procreating would not be depriving anyone of anything. The hypothetical person desires, and as a result of his desire suffers a lack. We don't create that lack.

Poverty is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. Breaking your leg is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. — baker

You'll need to elaborate on that, though honestly what we call it may not be all that relevant.

What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place? — Tzeentch

Self-confidence, a "lust for life". — baker

Why would self-confidence suffice in the case of procreation, when it clearly does not suffice anywhere else in life?

To go back to the sky-diving example, if I push someone out of a plane being extremely confident that they'll enjoy it, but instead they crash into the ground, does my self-confidence make any difference as to the nature of what just happened?

I think suffering is inherent to life. It even seems to be inherent to happiness (does happiness still have meaning without suffering to contrast it to?).

I genuinely cannot imagine what a life without any pain looks like, and I wonder if it wouldn't make the whole ordeal more meaningless?

People do not hold that as a moral belief because it is impossible to adhere to — Isaac

That has never stopped anyone. It certainly hasn't stopped you in the past.

Remember how your beliefs lead to one committing infinite moral transgressions?

Right.

Go ahead and argue that not causing irreversible harm to others without their consent isn't a basic moral belief most people hold. I'd love to hear about it.

Weren't you so fond of "reasonableness" and morality by majority decision? Well here you have it.

There’s something else going on here too. Where the already existing people can’t help but try to endure the stress of existence, by putting a new person in the fray, it’s creating yet more harm and harm-overcoming upon someone else in order to try to fix the current problems. The ultimate case of using people. — schopenhauer1

But it’s even worse cause it’s combining the two. I’m having a problem, therefore I will force recruit yet more people into the pyramid scheme operation that creates another person to endure harm itself. It actually solves nothing but to further continue the creating of victims. — schopenhauer1

I think the objection would be that many here believe us not just to be victims, but also beneficiaries. Would that change the nature of the pyramid scheme?

Of course, who are we to decide others must participate when we don't even know whether they'll be a victim or a beneficiary?

Strictly speaking you're right, of course. What I sought to convey was that procreation breaks some rules that many procreators themselves would consider the basics of moral interaction between individuals. It was not an attempt at a conclusive argument.

Indeed the (mathematical) method I propose is far from perfect, but it's much better than what we have at present - wild shots in the dark! — Agent Smith

I'll give you that. :up:

So one should avoid all actions which have a non-zero probability of harm? Do you realise what that entails? — Isaac

Probability is just a fundamentally flawed way of approaching these things, but:

One should definitely avoid actions that:
1). Cannot be performed consensually.
2). And are also irreversible.
3). And can also inflict great harm.
4). And one can also not oversee the consequences of.

Seems like a pretty decent set of criteria for any interaction with people. I don't see why procreation should be treated any different, and note that procreation checks all of these boxes.

As I said, there's nothing more I can say. If you don't understand basic probability we can't talk about probable events (such as future harms). — Isaac

Leaning on probability is just an admission of ignorance. One may need probability because one doesn't understand the cause and effect behind a certain phenomenon, so how is one going to base a philosophical argument on something one doesn't understand?

Probability is not something that exists in reality, they're practical assumptions we use as tools. Amongst other things, it's philosphy's job to question these assumptions to see if they hold any merit.

The thing is, my argument doesn't require knowledge of future harms at all. The fact that they're unknown is enough.

Is it ever okay to force recruit people into your projects? I think never. Generally people have a chance to move, associate differently, etc. The assumption about building the house is that someone else needs to help build that house because someone wants it. That by itself is not a moral obligation. That just leads to slippery slope thinking whereby technically everyone at all times needs to be busy helping others out. — schopenhauer1

Exactly so, however it has been Isaac's argument that one is thereby creating conditions for harm, and is thus immoral. (The way this ties back into the original topic is that he is arguing that not having children creates conditions for harm).

As you pointed out, this leads to a slippery slope. If not doing something creates conditions for harm, then we are creating harm continuously through all the actions we are not taking.

The second way of tackling this argument is through attacking the notion that not doing something causes something. Ergo, not helping the drowning man causes him to drown. While this may sound intuitively reasonable, it is an erroneous way of representing cause and effect. The man drowns because he ended up in the water and could not swim. Not because I did not help him. Had I not been there at all, the man would have also drowned.

Based on the aforementioned, the way I sought to definitively solve this issue is by considering "not acting", non-interference, not getting involved, etc. neutral. Not moral, nor immoral. Because:
1). If the opposite is true, one would creates infinite harm because of the infinite actions one did not take, and that is absurd.
2). One is not causing harm.

Rather, the background de facto understanding is life presents various choices and limitations limited to the physical and cultural realities of this existence. These things are well known because we live, experience, and learn about them everyday. Yet the big leap is assuming that THESE sets of choices offered in THIS existence is something OTHERS should endure. That is the stance I am objecting to. Along with these particular range of choices that existence offers (and of course more limited by place and time of where and when the person is born), but the harms of existence are also fairly well known, and the assumption that THESE sets of harms are okay for others to endure. And of course, the unforeseen harms that no one is sure of will befall people in the future. All of this is assumptions one makes on others behalf. Unlike other decisions where the person can just move out, associate with different people, get out of a contract, the actual set of choices and conditions themselves cannot be chosen or agreed upon. — schopenhauer1

I think this is an equally strong argument in favor of antinatalism, since by procreating one is undeniably making major choices on someone else's behalf without knowing what the person will experience and how they will enjoy it.

The common defense is that such decisions on behalf of someone else are acceptable under certain conditions, and the condition which satisfies many of the 'pro-natalists' is that it seems the chance of a good life is higher than that of a miserable one.

That seems like a flimsy argument to me, and I think the example of pushing someone out of a plane with a 90% chance of enjoying the experience and a 10% chance of crashing into the ground illustrates it well. What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place?

We don't need to be certain, a high likelihood of a happy/sad life (9 to 1 odds for example) should be good enough to make a decision as to whether to have a child/not. This, as you would've already realized, involves a heavy dose of mathematics. A mathematician like jgill might be able to give us a rough sketch of what kinda info is required and how they're related mathematically. — Agent Smith

And when the person we pushed out of the proverbial plane goes splat on the ground, what are we to make of that?

Excuse ourselves because we thought the odds were good? Didn't we just kill someone?

If you intended, then you are involved just as much as the other builders. — Isaac

No, an intention does not mean involvement. I may consider getting involved and then decide not to, and I wasn't involved before, during or after the decision is made.

So, an act then. — Isaac

Walking is an act. Non-interference is not.

I may be walking while I'm not involved in something. That doesn't make not being involved an act.

Yep. I intend to put a bet on, what are the chances of me winning? — Isaac

Zero. It's your actual playing of the game that will give you a chance of winning, not your intention.

So no decision to not interfere then (no changing one's mind), seeing as that's a major decision which affects someone else? — Isaac

It's not a decision I make for someone else. It's a decision that I make for myself.

You are now, you weren't before, you wanted to build a house too, and were involved. — Isaac

If I have at any point made it clear to the builders I was intending to build a house with them, then it's a different story. In a sense I have now taken upon myself a responsibility, because I've voluntarily created a situation in which people come to rely on my actions for their well-being.

Note that this is not a default situation. It requires specific actions from me prior to the ordeal for this to be the case.

Back to this crap again. Non-inteference is an act, that's why you came up with the phrase in the first place, as opposed to 'not acting' which you were previously using. — Isaac

Non-interference is not an act. It's literally not being involved.

The reason I switched to using this term is because even when one is not involved with things, one may still be doing other things that have nothing to do with the thing one is not involved in. Therefore "inaction" was confusing and strictly speaking inaccurate. It has nothing to do with non-interference being an act.

So if I place a bet on roulette, my chances of winning £100 are, say, 1 in 32.

You're seriously attempting to argue that if I don't even place a bet, I have a 1 in 32 chance of winning £100? — Isaac

You argued that you could change what is probable without interacting.

Is placing a bet on roulette not an interaction?

Oops.

So we're agreed then that procreation merely increases the probability of harm? — Isaac

I don't agree on that, though certainly increasing the probability of harm sounds like a foolish thing to do.

Probability conveys ignorance. It means we are unable to determine cause and effect. What it means to say that procreation "merely increases the probability of harm" is that we're ignorant to the causes and effects related to procreation.

Making major decisions for someone else while being ignorant to what one is setting in motion also seems like a foolish thing to do, which is precisely the basis on which I argue procreation is immoral.

The long and short of it is that it isn't always wrong to make other people's decisions for them; however, when we're allowed to do so has to be worked out carefully. Mistakes are gonna be costly. — Agent Smith

This is basically my position aswell.

The example I like to use is when two people are stranded in the wilderness and they need to cross a river. One person has an irrational fear of water and will not cross the river to get back to civilization, whereas the other person can clearly see there is no risk of drowning whatsoever. Can the fearful person now be dragged across the river against their will, for their own well-being?

I strongly lean towards a yes here, so what factors contribute to that, and are those factors present in the case of procreation?

At least one important factor that I believe is present in this example that isn't present for procreation, is that the danger of drowning can be measured with a great deal of accuracy. One can test the depth of the water and be certain, essentially.

The dangers/harms a child will face in their life cannot be predicted to such a degree at all. We may have some indications, but nothing resembling certainty.

In my opinion that is an important difference.

Then why raise the fact that we don't know? — Isaac

You're making assumptions about things that are unknown and attributing harm to conditions they supposedly create, that's why it's relevant. — Tzeentch

_____

Why the builders? — Isaac

Because it is the builders desire to build a house, and I am an uninvolved bystander, obviously.

Ah, so non-interference is neutral because it helps your argument if it is. Got it. — Isaac

Nonsense. It's neutral because it causes no harm, as I have argued.

And what you've attempted to do is construe a situation in which unrelated factors cause harm and you've attempted to blame the uninvolved for it.

So. we're talking about the harm you claim results, not the act. — Isaac

Right now we're talking about your attack on my principle of non-interference, in which you are attempting to equate procreation - a physical, detectable act, to non-interference - not an act.

If you've given up your attack on my principle and you're back to defending your choice to procreate let me know and we'll get right back to it.

You're seriously, on a public forum, going to claim that your chances of winning at roulette are the same if your don't put a bet on as they are if you do? — Isaac

The idea that the chances of winning at roulette change depending on whether you play is the absurd one. They're exactly the same before and after.

If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. — Isaac

Situation A: I am not playing roulette. The chance of winning is X.

Situation B: I am still not playing roulette. The chance of winning is still X.

Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house. — Tzeentch

What? — Isaac

Wasn't I responsible for harm because, in your view, I was available for house building and chose not to?

This assumes you can produce some objective measure by which to decide whether I am available or not. You just stated you couldn't, because the word, apparently, doesn't convey logic.

Right. So I haven't definitely caused harm by having the child. I've merely increased the probability of harm befalling someone. — Isaac

What a foolish thing to do.

All knowledge is an assumption about the unknown. You don't know that a potential child will come to harm. You assume. — Isaac

My argument doesn't rest on whether or not I know. In fact, it's indeed our ignorance of the consequences that should make us think twice before having children.

So there's no such thing as available? No one is ever available? — Isaac

When the builder's subjective wishful thinking matches up with the uninvolved person's abilty and desire to help out as evidenced by his agreement to help, I suppose he was correctly thought to be available.

If you're asking if some objective situation exists in which one can be considered "available" - of course not. It's subjective. If I want to help out but I cannot match the expectations of the builders, was I available? If I'm missing both arms and cannot help, am I creating conditions for the builders' harm? More logical is that the builders have incorrectly assumed I was going to help them in the first place, and thereby caused their own harm.

What? Why is being uninvolved the default, and what's that got to do with the situation I asked you about? — Isaac

Because in order to understand a principle (non-interference is neutral) we must regard it in an uncomplicated setting. If we can agree that non-interference is neutral in an uncomplicated setting we can see if there are settings in which it is no longer neutral.

Pretty obvious, and the term 'by default' I've probably repeated over a dozen times by now.

So harm to children is a potentiality then, not a condition. OK — Isaac

Procreation is a physical, detectable thing.

Who said anything about interacting? — Isaac

Some interaction must take place for me to become responsible for the harm that befalls someone else, no? Setting the conditions or otherwise.

If you believe we can cause harm without interacting, then I guess your list of moral transgressions has grown even longer.

You can change what is probable without interaction. If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. — Isaac

Your chance of winning with roulette was the exactly the same before and after.

So radiation was harmless before we understood the causality, when we had merely correlation? — Isaac

Haha, no. But you'll have to go through some process to prove you can equate the two.

The meaning of words is not determined by logic. We don't logically work out what the word 'available' means. — Isaac

Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house.

If I have a child, it is possible that child will go through life completely unharmed, yes? — Isaac

Sure.

What's them being unknown got to do with the argument about what they are. — Isaac

You're making assumptions about things that are unknown and attributing harm to conditions they supposedly create, that's why it's relevant.

So what were you when you intended to help build the house, before you changed your mind? — Isaac

You were deliberating.

How is that the builder's 'appointing random uninvolved people'? — Isaac

Because from the very beginning my argument, the argument that you attacked, has been about a default situation. That means the person is initially uninvolved in any way.

What's the difference then? — Isaac

The creation of conditions is a physical, detectable thing. Potentialities are things that may or may not happen in the future.

Non-interference is an action (it involves doing something else), and so has no problems affecting potentiality. — Isaac

Non-interference is not an action, regardless of whether one is doing something while one is not interfering with any given situation.

Lets say I walk by a house. Am I now interacting with the house because I'm also walking while not-interfering with it?

I don't think so.

No they can't. You keep reminding us that only direct causality counts. — Isaac

Simply untrue. We've talked about both direct causation and the creation of conditions.

So following your example of what it means to 'detect', then an outsider could perfectly well detect the nature of the deliberations by their effect. — Isaac

Correlation =/= Causation.

Then why don't you say "I don't know" when he asks? — Isaac

A friend says "I'm moving house on Wednesday, are you available to help?", you seriously telling me that your normal reply to such a question would be "I don't know if I'm available, I suppose we'll have to wait until Wednesday to find out"? — Isaac

If I intend to help I may want to reassure my boss or my friend that I will do everything in my power to be present to do so. However, that's simply a way of human customs. It has nothing to do with logic, because it's fundamentally illogical. We cannot know if we're available in the future.

The mathematization of the issue with the requisite risk-benefit analysis needs work but rest assured once we have the exact figures, we can make decisions rationally, exactly what we should be doing, oui? — Agent Smith

Let's say we know the exact figures. 9:1 in favor of pushing someone out of the plane. Surely it is not up to the pusher to decide that they like those odds on someone else's behalf, or do you disagree? Would it be fine to push someone in such a situation, and one would carry no blame when they go splat?

What's you knowing it got to do with causality? — Isaac

Your argument is that a change in conditions takes place through my deliberation, when in fact it is unknown whether the conditions will change until I've made up my mind.

The conditions in which harm is going to happen (future tense - same as procreation) is that the house cannot be built. That is going to cause harm.

That condition, that state of affairs, came about when you decided not to help. — Isaac

That condition was already in place when there were only four builders and they were looking for a fifth. I was never a potential builder, and I brought about no state of affairs or conditions. This is just wishful, entitled thinking on the part of the builders, appointing random uninvolved people as potential builders and then blaming them for their own ignorance.

If I set out, assuming every woman in my town to be a potential love interest, and it turns out they're not. Who is creating the harm here? If anyone is creating harm at all it is me.

It's nothing to do with causing the harm itself. — Isaac

Fine. You've conflated creating conditions with potentiality.

And the question is still valid, since your view is that it is possible to create conditions by not taking a certain action, and that by doing so you become responsible for harm. Is that not your position?

So are you responsible for all the conditions that is "created" by actions you did not take? Seems like the outcome is the same - an infinite, list of moral transgressions.

So it necessarily involves potentiality. As does procreation. — Isaac

Procreation is an act. Not acting is not an act.

Your objection is about the potentiality of harm, not direct causality. — Isaac

It's about both, really. Life has many harms inherent to it, and those can be said to be caused directly by the parents.

So radiation was harmless before the invention of the Geiger counter? Shame we invented it really. — Isaac

Before the Geiger counter you could detect it when your hair and teeth started falling out, but whatever you say.

No one even mentioned harm. You claimed you didn't know if you were available until the time of the actual event. This is clearly just a misuse of the word 'available'. If your boss asks you if you're available next Thursday you know perfectly well what he means. Apply that understanding to the question I asked. Don't dodge it by pretending available means something else. — Isaac

I'm not dodging anything.

Strictly speaking I don't know if I'm available when my boss asks. However, my contract created a condition X, that my boss counts on my presence at the agreed upon time. If I now go fishing instead, the condition goes from 'X' to 'not X', and it can be said I've caused conditions, not by virtue of my non-interference, but by virtue of my breach of contract. There's no such contract in a default situation.

So how could prospective parents possibly change their minds about having children when such a decision is already made? — Isaac

I didn't say the decision is already made. I said that we don't know our final decision until we make it.

Condition A: world is in a state such that a house can be built.

Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house.

Condition B: world is in a state such that a house cannot be built. — Isaac

It's never in a state that the house can be built. I fear you've conflated causation with potentiality.

Let me ask you this, are you responsible for all the harm "caused" by every possible action you could take, but didn't? Are you immoral for not taking those actions? There are a lot of actions you could possibly be taking right now, infinite in fact, and I guess then so is your list of moral transgressions.

How? — Isaac

With a geiger counter.

That changes whether you understand what 'available' means? — Isaac

No, it changes the situation since I've voluntarily accepted responsibilities. This is no longer a default situation. If I promise someone I'm available for work (an act in the actual physical world) I am creating conditions.

But if I never was an employee to begin with, and we had signed no contract, clearly I would not be harming the employer for not showing up to work, let alone be responsible for it!

The antinatalism-natalism problem will be settled for good once we can calculate the probability of a future child ending up down in the dumps or on cloud nine. You can't argue with math; if your future baby has a 90% chance of lifelong suffering, it would be insane, not to mention cruel, to have him/her and if the odds of happiness are 90%, it would be wrong to not have the child. — Agent Smith

I'm not sure if this solves it.

Should I push you out of an airplane if there's a 90% chance of you having a great experience, and a 10% chance of crashing into the Earth?

And regardless of one's answer to that, what gives one the right to decide for another that they should jump out of an airplane in the first place?

That you changed your mind? — Isaac

That's just another way of saying you didn't know.

Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house. No house. Is there something about that account that puzzles you? — Isaac

Haha, yes. Where is the causation in this story?

Condition A: No house.

> "Neurons fire"

Condition B: Still no house.

You're unaware of the concept of passing time? Everything that happens, happens concurrently? — Isaac

So what, not only are you entitled to decide for me whether I am potentially available, but I also need to decide now?

Everything you argue is from your perspective, your desires, your subjective ideas of whether or not someone is available or not and what are their acceptable courses of action, and there should somehow arise some objective situation from that.

I can't detect radiation either. — Isaac

You can detect radiation.

Brilliant. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your work.

Boss: "are you available for night shift on Thursday?"

You: "how could I possibly know, we'll just have to wait until Thursday and fond out, won't we?" — Isaac

For the sake of argument, I have a contract with my boss. I don't have a contract with the child that I will not have.

So you're not in control of your own decisions, you just 'find out' what they are when you get there? — Isaac

Essentially, yes. What else would you conclude if you believe to be available but ultimately it turns out you're not? Only that you apparently didn't know whether you were available or not.

The suffering from the lack of a house. — Isaac

Deliberating causes a lack of a house? Explain, please.

So in your view, while I'm deliberating the possibility of a house flashes in and out of existence, and thereby causing harm? And you're accusing me of coming to weird conclusions?

An outsider couldn't even detect the nature of the deliberations, let alone suffer harm from them.

So before you say anything, were you available or not? — Isaac

There's no way to tell.

If you want to argue against my position, quote me. — Isaac

Just thought I'd do everyone a favor and delineate how all of this ties back to the subject of the thread.

So before you changed your mind, when you were planning to help build the house, you were unavailable? How so? — Isaac

I didn't know whether I would be available, clearly.

If I thought I would be available and turn out not to be, then clearly I didn't know if I was available in the first place.

Why would those two criteria determine something to be a moral rule, as opposed to any other rule? — Isaac

I'm done playing games. Wrap up your little yarn and get to a point that pertains to the subject.

It's not remotely a problem for me. — Isaac

According to you, deliberation causes conditions to form, and such conditions can produce harm.

Can you point to the harm done as a result of my deliberation? I think not.

I'm deliberating, changing my mind several times. Am I now causing harm with every deliberation?

Clearly not, and if you believe otherwise than kindly point me to the harm that's done by deliberating.

Whether a condition is formed is decided when I express my conclusion to the builders.

If I tell them I am available, now the condition changes from there being four people available to five.

If I tell them I am not available, the conditions haven't changed. There are still four people available.

The problem are for those who think mental activity is magic. — Isaac

You're talking about yourself? Where is the magical suffering that's caused by my deliberation?


Let's bring this back on topic:


Your final argument was that not having children causes harm.

This is an erroneous representation of cause and effect, since doing nothing causes nothing. It has no physical effects nor does it create conditions.

The drowning man drowns because he fell into the water, not because I did not save him. He would drown whether I am there to not save him, or whether I am not there at all. My presence has no effect.

You attempted to mend this by saying it still causes harm because I was 'available' to avoid it. To which I replied that clearly I wasn't, because otherwise I may have saved the man. I was unavailable, busy being myself.

To this you said that according to some unspecified arbiter of availibility (that conspicuously shares your idea of reasonableness), I could have been available and that my internal deliberation deciding I was not is what caused the harm. To which I now say, show me the harm caused by my deliberation - you cannot. I've changed my mind several times. Did I cause harm several times?

Note you have de facto abandoned your position that not having children causes harm, but that, apparently, we're responsible for the harm caused to others when they have wrongfully mistaken us for being 'available' for fulfilling their desires.

Your idea can be summed up that it is immoral not to involve oneself in business on the basis of what others believe to be your reasonable actions. Not acting to fulfill their desires harms them, because they had "reasonably" assumed you were available.

Yet, the problem with this position is clear and you've already shown it when I asked you to build a house for me and you implied that wasn't reasonable thing to ask.


If you have any questions you would like me to answer, please make clear how they relate to the central question. If there are unrelated questions that are burning on your mind, send them in a private message.

In the scenario I described, whose physical actions caused the change in conditions from the state where a house could be built to the state where one could not? — Isaac

No one's. No change took place. The condition under which the house could not be built was in place all along, the builders simply didn't have the information to understand.

We never went from five to four builders, because a fifth person was not available.

Traffic laws also guide behaviour for individuals in life. Is it a moral rule that we ought drive on the left? — Isaac

I'm not sure. Does it pertain to living a good life? Does it pertain to not harming others? I could see an argument made for it, or against it. Why is it relevant?

Then who does? You keep dodging the question. Who causes the change of circumstances in the situation I described, if not you? — Isaac

I've answered you more than once. You just don't like the answer.

Speaking of dodging questions, what about those deliberations in one's head that according to you cause conditions and harm? Isn't it about time you address that elephant?

Why? — Isaac

You're asking why I think I shouldn't harm people? Gut feeling, I guess. It seems people are a lot happier when they don't harm each other.

What would inform us of the invalidity of a moral rule. — Isaac

Logical inconsistencies.

Why don't you come to a point?

So what does? — Isaac

Physical actions.

So do the rules of chess. So what distinguishes morality from any other set of principles which guide behaviour? — Isaac

Not that much, in fact.

The rules of chess guide behavior for individuals playing chess. Morals guide behavior for individuals in life.

By your non-interference (by doing something else instead of helping) you create the conditions in which it is impossible to build a house and all the harms which go along with that. — Isaac

This is where we seem to disagree.

I don't create conditions in matters that I am not involved in by not getting involved. I'm not a part of the conditions initially, and I don't become part of it when I choose not to get involved.

And when I'm deliberating whether or not to get involved in my mind, those conditions aren't changing, nor am I harming people by deliberating internally. And you still need to somehow argue that is the case.

But why is that immoral? Can't I just say that I've decided it isn't, using my rational logic? — Isaac

It's immoral because we're creating harm by our voluntary action. Individuals do not like being harmed, and interactions with other individuals should be on terms acceptable to both sides (consensuality).

And yes, you can argue otherwise and present the logic that leads you to a different conclusion. Go right ahead, isn't that after all what we're here for?

In the end it's about who can present the most coherent argument.

What is the goal of the examination? — Isaac

Testing the validity of one's ideas, of course. We wouldn't want to base our behavior on faulty ideas.

If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself (not easy, but doable). — Agent Smith

This is a very weak argument.

It's like putting a ring through someone's nose when they're asleep, only to tell them "If you don't like it, just rip it out" when they're asking you why you've done it. Was the person justified in his actions because the subject doesn't opt for the pain of tearing it out?

I suppose the argument goes something like "If you don't hate life enough to commit suicide, you must like it", but is there any other situation in which that standard is used? That the acceptability of imposing conditions on someone is measured by whether or not they violently extract themselves from it through suicide?

Poverty (and much greater harms than that) then must be entirely acceptable, since as long as there are poor people not committing suicide, they like it enough.


Further, one may not like life one bit, but still refrain from suicide due to the suffering it would bring others.


Like I said, a very weak argument (and that's assuming there's even a single person that genuinely believes it), used mostly by disgruntled opponents of antinatalism who are looking for something to say.

There’s the potential for harm to occur in every human interaction. Therefore is all harm caused intentional? — Pinprick

Some of it is caused by ignorance, but roughly speaking yes. If one is aware of the risks (so ignorance is not a factor) and takes the risk, then one intentionally causes harm when it happens.

That's why we ought to behave carefully in our interactions with others and seek consensuality always, especially when the potential harm is irreversible.

I think you have that backwards, but we make this same assumption all the time when we interact with each other. — Pinprick

Yes, I did write that backwards. I meant the parents assumed the good will outweigh the harm of course.

Ok. Then is there really a default situation where no one is depending on us? For example, our parents may depend on us to have children so that they can become grandparents, which will improve their happiness/well-being. — Pinprick

Such a situation is certainly thinkable, but the key is not whether someone depends on us, but whether we accepted such a situation voluntarily.

I did not choose to be born, nor did I accept the duty to provide my parents with grandchildren. They might rely on me to fulfill that desire, but I did not create that situation nor did I accept it voluntarily, so I'm not responsible.

I asked about neither of those occasions. I asked about the occasion of you changing your mind. — Isaac

I don't think it creates conditions.

So if you didn't speak English you could just 'work out' what moral means using reason? — Isaac

You seem to be deliberately trying to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I won't play that game. This obviously isn't about the English language.

Morality is a set of principles that guide behavior, and I believe such principles can be arrived at through reason, regardless of what language one speaks.

So you intend to help. The conditions are thst it's possible to build a house. You change your mind and walk away. The conditions are now that it's impossible to build a house.

If you changing your mind didn't cause the conditions to change, what did? — Isaac

The conditions didn't change until one had finally made up their mind and turned their intentions into physical actions.

You can't just step over this. You claim thoughts in your head are conditions. You also claim that changing these conditions may incur harm. This means that through a process of inner deliberation I would be causing harm. That is absurd.

Not if it's voluntary. They just decide it doesn't. — Isaac

You're now claiming that responsibility is not voluntary, that some actions bring about a non-optional responsibility. Why? And why only some actions? — Isaac

Because they're actions that create dependency in others. If we voluntarily make others depend on us for their well-being, that brings responsibility that is not optional, morally speaking. Why? Because we voluntarily created a situation in which we cause harm if we aren't to take said responsibility.

It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality. — Tzeentch

No inaction is a word we use to describe neutral action opposite to the action in question. — Isaac

You can't point at an act that isn't happening. While we may infer it (You are walking, therefore you are not standing still) it is not happening in reality. It's a mental construction.

You're always performing some action really. You breathe, digest, look about... — Isaac

True. However, I never implied one needs to be completely still for inaction (towards a certain thing), but to avoid confusion I have changed to using the term non-interference.

Plato decided what the word moral means? You didn't know how to use the word until you read Plato? People who haven't read Plato don't know what moral means? This just gets weirder and weirder. — Isaac

Plato and other thinkers alerted me to the fact that my previous conception of morality was unexamined and muddy, not unlike yours.

What about before you change your mind and decide not to help (having previously planned to)? — Isaac

It makes no difference.

When the builders come to ask the conditions are that four people are available.

When I make my intentions known that condition hasn't changed.

Then why are you disputing what is reasonable? — Isaac

To show you how unusable the notion of reasonableness is - opinions vary greatly on what is reasonable and what isn't.

I'm just saying that some behaviour is reasonable and some behaviour is not. — Isaac

Well that is fine, but I don't see why I should value your opinion over someone else's. I need reasoning and logic.

When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? No. So those behaviours are not moral. It's not what the word means. — Isaac

I don't determine what is moral based on what I was taught. I determine it on the basis of reason and moral principles.

Are you seriously going to claim you changing your mind doesn't bring about a change in conditions? — Isaac

In the context of our example it sure seems that way. Remember you have also claimed that changing the conditions causes harm, so now you're implying that by internally changing your mind, you're causing harm. Seems absurd to me.

You said both intentions and consequences matter. — Isaac

If someone chooses non-interference with malevolent intentions then that certainly matters, but not by virtue of creating conditions, but by taking pleasure in other people's suffering. It's not really related to our discussion.

If it's voluntary then a parent might choose to have a child but not take on the responsibility of caring for them. — Isaac

They voluntarily bring about the conditions in which a child will rely on them for survival. That's when it becomes the parent's responsibility.

Inaction exists. Otherwise what are we talking about. — Isaac

It does not. It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality.

The tooth fairy doesn't exist, yet we can talk about the tooth fairy.

How did you learn what the word 'moral' means? — Isaac

By reading Plato I suppose.

you admit that, in deciding, you create the conditions for harm. — Isaac

I do not. It would merely inform the builders what the conditions are.

Before the builders ask my help the condition is that there are four people available. After I have made it clear I wish not to get involved, there are four people available.

No conditions have been created.

Then by what? How did you learn how to use the word 'reasonable'? — Isaac

I don't know. Reasonableness isn't a part of my argument.

I can live with a phrase such as "beyond any reasonable doubt", but reasonableness as you are using it is very subjective and in my view unusable.

So you were born unwilling to help? — Isaac

I was born uninvolved.

So it's not possible to change your mind? — Isaac

Sure I can.

I didn't ask about some I asked about your community. When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? — Isaac

What does this matter? In my "community" ideas vary wildly about what is moral, and many of those ideas I would consider clearly the opposite.

I have reasons for having children. Do you assume they are good reasons? — Isaac

I believe you that you must have had good intentions.

But let's not make it personal.

If you scroll back through this discussion you'll see the intentions of the parents are not what's being questioned.

Agreed. Took an inordinate length of time to get there. — Isaac

I've been saying the same thing for a dozen or so posts, so you may take the credits for that one.

So...how do you judge when non-interference is immoral? — Isaac

When one has voluntarily taken upon themselves the responsibility to care for the person in need.

For example, a parent cannot let their child starve, because the parent voluntarily created a situation in which the child depends on them to fulfill their life needs.

Why does inaction not have consequences? — Isaac

Because things that do not exist in reality do not have consequences.

When we describe reality we point at things that are actually happening.

I imagine they might, but I'm not talking to someone in the middle east. I'm talking to you. — Isaac

Well if you're interested in my approach to morality, you're in luck because I've already been sharing it with you over the last few pages.

Then why are you telling me them? — Isaac

You have asked me this before in another discussion, and the answer is the same as it was then.

The reason I post on this forum is to test my ideas. That's why I'm taking part in this discussion with you. Not to convince you, not to judge you, not to spread my gospel, etc.

You either decide you're available to help with the housebuilding or that you're not. — Isaac

Sure. But that is not what was proposed. What was proposed before was that my availability was already decided, and that to dissent was to create conditions and harm.

Then you've misunderstood the meaning of the word reasonable. How many people in your language community have you heard use the word unreasonable to describe fifteen minutes of relaxation time? — Isaac

Reasonableness isn't decided by majority decision, as we've already established.

Funnily enough I've been in communities where fifteen minutes of rest was unacceptable.

Five people are needed to build a house. You create the situation where there are only four by walking away. You created the situation in which it is now impossible to build a house from one where it was possible. — Isaac

There were never going to be five people available to build the house. I haven't created a condition by not getting involved, it has merely informed the builders what the conditions are, namely that there are and were only four people available all along.

Your position is based on an assumption that the starting point is another's desires and their opinion of whether you're 'available' to help out gives them a right to make you part of the problem. I disagree.

And your community doesn't think they were wrong? — Isaac

Some do, some don't. Plenty of fascists, racists and communists around. Most western countries are flirting with totalitarianism. Bad ideas are alive and popular as ever.

You don't think individuals should be left to their own devices to act as they see fit (such as procreation). — Isaac

Me having ideas about morality does not mean I believe individuals shouldn't be free to make their own choices, including choices that I would deem "moral mistakes". Let's keep the discussion honest.

You don't argue that their reasons for action should be assumed to be good. — Isaac

I don't see what that has to do with individualism, nor what part of our discussion this is relevant to.

If you can judge someone's action to be immoral, why can I not judge your inaction to be immoral? — Isaac

Non-interference can be immoral, however it is not so by default.

We can't judge someone who isn't involved for not getting involved. I've already told you why - if not getting involved is immoral, it turns into a moral imperative to get involved in everything.

And you cannot solve that with subjective notions of reasonableness. For one, because such a moral theory would be missing an arm and a leg, but second, because people will also use their subjective notions of reasonableness to decide whether to get involved or not.

The man doesn't involve himself with the building of the house because his subjective notions of what is reasonable told him his time would be better spent fishing.

You may try to ammend that by stating that his notions of reasonableness are only valid if they correspond to whatever community he is part of (which would also imply we're no longer talking about a 'default' situation, but alas), to which I'll say that collectives have never been a reliable source of moral behavior.

inaction or action can both have consequences — Isaac

Inaction does not have consequences. To argue such would be a typically human but erroneous way of representing causality. The drowning man doesn't drown because I did not help him, but because he could not swim and somehow ended up in the water.

The apple doesn't fall on the ground because I wasn't there to catch it.

etc.

They're not 'my' notions of reasonableness. I haven't just plucked them out o thin air. I've been living with other humans using the word 'reasonable' for nearly 60 years. I have a pretty good idea of what 'reasonable' means that's considerably more than just me making it up. — Isaac

I imagine that someone in the Middle-East who is about to stone a woman to death for adultery would come with a similar argumentation.

"What do you mean reasonable? My people have been doing this for hundreds of years!"

So it's OK for me to be immoral? — Isaac

It would be more accurate to say I would not ask you to conform to my ideas of morality.

Are you suggesting that your own availability is out of your control? — Isaac

Yes.

I'm not in control over the ideas in other individuals' heads for which I may or may not be available.

All reasonable activities (in moderation and depending on what else is happening around them). Rest and relaxation are demonstrably necessary. — Isaac

Those activities aren't reasonable at all. They've been sitting there for at least fifteen minutes already, which I deem more than a reasonable amount of rest. After all, I'm over here suffering by their idle hands!

You created the condition where too few people were available to build the house. — Isaac

I did not create that condition. I've already given you multiple examples as to why that would be absurd, despite your attempts at fitting your argument into the "reasonable" mould.

Remember when a few comments back I asked you why you felt people were entitled to another's action?

You denied that you were. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

What evidence would that be? — Isaac

I don't need to list the countless atrocities committed throughout history by collectives that were unable to discern right from wrong. Use your imagination.

The degree to which you lean towards individualism is a) inconsistent - it appears to only apply to inaction, not action, — Isaac

Explain.

Why does non-interference escape judgement? — Isaac

Because one cannot be judged for something one isn't involved in.

I argue that not getting involved is acceptable by default.

To argue otherwise would lead to absurdities like the one I explained earlier - if not getting involved is immoral, that can only lead to a moral imperative to get involved in absolutely everything one possibly can.

Why aren't you spending your every waking moment involving yourself with other people's troubles? I have a house that needs building and your inaction is causing me great harm.

Then of course you fence with notions of reasonableness - fair enough, but if you get to apply your notions of reasonableness then everyone does. After that, we can only accept that everyone is to decide by their own reason whether to involve themselves in matters or not. Hence my position.

I'm not judging anyone. — Tzeentch

So declaring something immoral is not a judgement? On what planet? — Isaac

It's a judgement, not of a person, but of an action and/or the arguments that support it.

So you are responsible for creating those conditions then, because you are responsible for your availability. — Isaac

Negative. Availability is something that exists in the mind of some other individual. It is not some objective state, which is what you're trying to sell it as.

No you couldn't. Half the town would clearly be occupied with a ton of other reasonable tasks. — Isaac

Nonsense. They're sitting on their lawn, reading books, watching tv. Terribly unreasonable things, those immoral creators of suffering! Why isn't my house built yet?

Parents to not create the conditions for harm to befall their children, those perpetrating the harm do. — Isaac

Parents create the condition of life, and life invariably also includes harm.

The community reaches an agreement by various means. — Isaac

This is clearly missing some essential puzzle pieces, unless you wish to argue that morality is whatever a community agrees upon, which honestly it kind of sounds like you're saying. And the evidence to the contrary is so vast that I would indeed be confused if this is what you're arguing.

So we all for as we please then? — Isaac

In the absence of objective truth we have two options: leave the individual to judge themselves (individualism) or let the community dictate (collectivism).

I lean heavily towards individualism.

But we are going wildly off-topic here.

So why does this not apply to procreation? — Isaac

Because procreation is an act, and not non-interference.

Are we really coming down to nothing more than that the antinatalists want to be able to morally judge others but don't want others morally judging them?

You get to judge us for our actions, but your inaction is off limits and whatever your reasons are must be assumed good. — Isaac

I'm not judging anyone. I'm presenting moral principles and the logic that supports it.

Why, is your availability outside of your control? — Isaac

It's a notion that doesn't exist to an uninvolved bystander. It's the person who has the desire to build a house that creates it.

I'm referring to the condition where there are only four people potentially available. That condition leads to suffering because five people need to be potentially available as a minimum requirement. — Isaac

Perhaps so, but I don't agree that it is the uninvolved bystander that creates the condition, nor the suffering.

It seems to me the builders are themselves creating the conditions that cause suffering.

This idea of 'availability' is subjective. I could reasonably assume half my town to be "available" to do things for me. Why don't they build me a house? Because they're not involved with my house building.

And they don't thereby create the conditions for my house not being built, nor my suffering. I created that.

Right, so back to everyone doing as they please. No morality. — Isaac

People do as they please regardless. The question is whether reasoned morality is a part of that which pleases them.

I already have. The limits on mental and physical capacity, limuts on access to resources, reasonable other goals which occupy one's time... — Isaac

And who is to be the arbiter of this?

Should I decide for you that you are not doing nearly enough, and you're occupying yourself with unreasonable goals?

Right. Then they couldn't easily save them then, could they? They'd risk some psychological harm (fear of retribution). I specified "easily". — Isaac

I don't agree that what is "easy" should in the context of morality be determined by a third party.

It is precisely what is under contention.

When a person chooses not to get involved they must have some reason for it, and if they choose non-interference then interference must not have been as "easy" as a third party may have deemed it to be.

In a default situation, ergo completely uninvolved bystander, it's my position that whatever reason they presents is sufficient, no matter how irrational it may seem to a third party, assuming it is not malevolent.