Either you are not really taking this seriously or you hve some kind of strange mental block.

Anyway, bye bye. You just did away with any future interaction from myself and, I strongly suspect, many MANY others.

So you are asking a redunant question.

If you are framing certain kinds of burden as unnecessary and then asking people to name an unnecessary burden that is necessary … well, you can see the problem.

I would add that it is also better to burden some people with somethings and others with other things to lessen the burden for both - each being more or less accustomed to said ‘things’. As an extreme example one might ask someone to kill for food and in this circumstance some people are more able to carry this burden than others whilst if the tsk was different those more able to handle the burden of killing would be less able to deal with other tasks.

So ‘that person’ (as you put it) is not society at large nor a community. The individual exists as ‘part of’ not ‘apart from’.

So,

Would you be okay if someone went around causing unasked for burdens upon people and with no reason tied to mitigating a dire circumstance for that person? — schopenhauer1

It depends. As for examples of circumstances I just laid out the frame work for endless examples of this. It was not difficult.

X states an apple is an apple then claims that an apple is an apple.
Y asks what the point of this is.

That is a basic breakdown of the exchange we have had.

So, YES an ‘unecessary burden’ is ‘unnecessary’ … what is or is not considered as necessary or unnecessary is a matter of opinion. Specific examples can be expanded upon and explored via hypothetical scenarios. The abstracted the scenario is from reality the lower the resolution.

From a purely ‘natalist’ perspective there are undoubtedly situations where one ca argue that it is not particularly viable to have children and others where it is. ‘Necessity’ used in this realm is a slippery term.

No dude, that's not how ethics works. If you want to debate meta-ethics, cool, but not what this particular argument is about. — schopenhauer1

There is nothing here then. Just you expressing an opinion.

If something is unnecessary it is unnecessary. It depends. Not much to talk about then. We could go back and forth proposing various theoretical scenarios and argue why one is necessary and another is not … so what?

Obviously if you define something as unjustified it is unjustified. Some given ‘burden’ that is ‘unnecessary’ is an extremely abstract proposition.

You are not really saying anything. I know the point stems from some extreme antinatalist stance so I am safe to guard against it and prod you to provide some actual reasoning that is not merely an empty opinion.

‘Harm’ is a term that has relative meaning. ‘Wrong’ too. It depends. Fin.

It would depend on the circumstances. There is no ‘wrong’ done just because I am burdened with something. There are circumstances where I would personally call it ‘wrong’ though.

The statement that is it flat out wrong to burden anyone with anything is ridiculous.

Your opinion. You have to accept you are expressing an opinion here rather than offering an iron cast argument that backs up your opinion.

It is ‘wrong’ in your opinion. It is not justified in your opinion.

I cannot really take your opinion that seriously. Yet if you are expressing this as if it is a solid position to hold and holds logical weight, alongside being justifiable, I will just keep saying ‘no’ until you give something other than raw subjective opinions.

At the end of the day this is what it boils down too. That and the difficulty of trying to ‘measure’/‘rate’ suffering and balancing such out against probability and such. I think we all accept that suffering is a necessary part of living. If one truly wishes to eradicate ALL suffering then extinguishing ALL life would be the best route to take … only a zealot would go down that road though.

I think people have problems with it due to low resolution understanding and/or because fanatics of antinatalism also possess low resolution views.

As a thought experiment it has value. As an ethical template it is both irrelevant and contrary.

It is a positive philosophy that says no to suffering and false hope. — Andrew4Handel

Just like many a tyrant has claimed on the past. Ironically they pursue obliteration and/or various forms and extensions of human suffering rather than tempering them. An aim with an absolute solution is always fanatical and often antithetical to its proposed purpose.

Nations don’t actually exist in a physical sense. You scenario does a decent job of bringing this to people’s attention … or does it? I will have to read responses above mine.

@Benj96 A SLIGHT exaggeration maybe. It simply depends con whether or not one is fanatical about any proposed philosophical position.

There is a significant use in contemplating how your actions effect others and your personal motivations for having children.

People value that which confirms what they believe. They call this ‘truth’.

The gamer’s dilemma was created in 2009 by the philosopher Morgan Luck and boils down to the basic argument that if in and of itself virtual murder in video games like the kind in GTA is morally permissible because no one is actually being harmed then in and of itself virtual pedophilia and rape in video games must be morally permissible also for the same reason. — Captain Homicide

As I cannot read the article a couple of caveats … ‘virtual’ anything comes in degrees and levels. Games are not meant to simulate violence accurately.

I would argue they are ‘okay’ if low resolution representations. Context is also VERY important.

I don't think that is realistic, but if we live in a complete utopia where even the human condition is not its own worst enemy (boredom leading to more strife), sure. — schopenhauer1

Again. Imposing your view onto others. You are fairly unique in your pessimism.

I wouldn't want to burden people to get to a utopia though. — schopenhauer1

Of course. You hate guilt/responsibility. You are not willing to do mar your perfect soul.

There exists states of affairs where no people are burdened. — schopenhauer1

Yes. This is called extinction. Life without burdens is NOT life. You are imagining something impossible over and over (even ‘rights’ of people who have not been born!) and acting like it is perfectly fine to do so … why do you have this mere notion?

I have never heard of anyone being imprisoned for planning to kill someone who does not exist. People who do not exist have no burdens and those that do have burdens. Is this hard for you to grasp?

Okay, let me put it like this. Because YOU say something is unnecessary it does not make it so. Something being ‘unnecessary’ is not necessarily ‘wrong’ either. Imposing some ‘burden’ on someone can be done with good intent yet still almost certainly result in a negative, just as some ‘relief’ can result in a negative.

As a hypothetical it is a point worth exploring privately. How do I feel about having a potential child in terms of the ‘burdens’ it will bring them. I am completely fine about that. It is necessary for life (which I am fond of). If you are talking about projecting this into the future (some imaginary being to be born) then are you willing to project further and admit it is necessary to have children to continue human life? Or would you rather robots produced children to maintain human populations to make you feel better about inflict the gift of life upon the world?

I do like the hypothetical of all people living a good life whilst one suffers utterly and eternally. That makes you think about how powerful an influence ethics can have over something previously deemed ideal/good.

The topic is whether or not it is moral to unnecessarily burden someone. — schopenhauer1

To repeat. Loaded question. Clearly if something is unnecessary it is unnecessary.

Teaching and learning are ‘burdens’. They are necessary ‘burdens’. Think of a courtroom where someone is being sentenced for committing murder … the judge takes into account the circumstances before sentencing there is not a universal sentence for the crime of murder because ‘it depends’ on the situation.

Someone imposing burden X on someone for reason Y is nothing to go off. It is like saying person X committed crime Y then asking whether or not it is ‘just’ to send them to prison for 20 years. It makes no sense to argue against or for this sentence as we have no idea what it is we are talking about.

Then it does not matter. If there is not ethical quandary then why bother gesticulating about it?

It is perfectly justifiable to have children for people who wish to, see it as mutually beneficial and/or want to. There, no ‘morals’ involved whatsoever.

Is it justifiable to create unnecessary burdens? That is a ridiculously loaded question but you have already used the term ‘necessary’ to describe the ‘burden’. If you had asked to what degree is it justified to creat burdens for others then you have a chance of a reasonable discussion. If that it what was meant I can only answer with ‘it depends’.

Because we don’t attend to the obvious unless there is a reason to. I pay no heed to how I inhale or exhale … except now I am doing just that. ‘To Question’ is probably best replaced with ‘To Ken’.

It depends what is meant by ‘doubt’. I think it is fair to say anything in direct conscious attention is being ‘questioned’ to some degree. Otherwise it would not be held consciously as some given item.

If not having children amounts to 'avoiding responsibility' that implies we have a responsibility to procreate - I would disagree with that. — Tzeentch

It doesn’t imply that. You read that into the words I wrote.

I also dislike the characterization of people as fearful, 'refusing to live', 'zombie state of existence' for asking the question - I think those amount to little more than thinly-veiled personal attacks. — Tzeentch

Nothing thinly veined about it. It was a direct attack on someone espousing the idea that life is merely to be viewed as a ‘burden’.

And it is a little ironic, when in the next sentence you say this about procreation — Tzeentch

I never used the term ‘procreation’ once. I merely stated that it is highly questionable (repugnant if genuine) to claim it is ‘selfish’ to have children. Does this ‘imply’ that it is selfless to not have children and/or a morally superior stance?

As for the claim to be looking out for humans (that do not exist) and assuming that if you view this position as ideal - which I would doubt greatly even if you insisted.

In my view, there's nothing self-serving about it, considering the above-mentioned dilemma. — Tzeentch

Avoiding responsibility is basically what I think he is referring to. No responsibilities means you cannot be blamed for anything or have the ‘burden’ of guilt.

Actual LIVING is not a ‘burden’. Life is an assault of problems and you frame these ‘problems’ is quite often due to personal attitudes. Attitudes can be altered.

We could all be paralysed by the idea of stepping foot outside fearing some calamity may fall upon another. The very same can be argued for NOT stepping outside. Being paralysed by fears, guilts or whatever is to refuse to live … it is akin to performing a zombie state of existence where you abscond from any sense of responsibility and dress it up as ‘ethical’.

Needless to say I think it is a faulty position to hold. I should add that having a child is not a choice anyone should make lightly. Equally so, it is certainly not a ‘selfish’ ploy although it has countless positives with the responsibility it brings. Only someone evil would purposely bring a life into this world and focus on ‘burdening’ such a life rather than focusing on the potential for joy and engagement in the world.

It has been addressed by others well enough I think. It depends on whether you wanted to talk about transgenderism or Motte and Bailey in particular I guess. I assumed it was the latter.

When the only value we share in common is the value of the dollar, and the bottom line is "how much something cost", it is as deadly for a nation as brain cancer is deadly to humans. — Athena

Yes. Thankfully not everyone is swayed by the belief in monetary value above all else. When it comes to the US (looking in from the outside) it does appear to hold more sway over there than in Europe. There are other differences too, and I believe it is mostly connected to a stronger sense of patriotism (which I personally dislike).

Myths are almost certainly educational devices used in prehistory. Knowledge needs to be passed on somehow and narratives are a great way to do so.

Lynne Kelly will probably interest you.

See above.

As to the OP in general … it just takes a small amount communication to see the divide and then explore where the differences lie within the divide.

Poor example.

In physical sports no. I general yes. It is common sense.

By the end pf the century I expect there will be a complete change of our species and we will extend beyond anything we can currently imagine. CRISPR and cybernetics will ‘evolve’ us down several roads. Things inevitably change. Sadly I think there will be far more significant prejudices and social problems to come that will make the whole politicising of transgender people a mere speck in the distance.

More gibberish. We shit and breath without choice. We may try not to do either but they are both inevitable until death comes.

The rest is more unrelated drivel. I am assuming you take ‘imposition’ to be wholly unrelated to choice? Like I said, semantics. Convenient ways to bend anything anyone says to suit your needs to ‘win’ a debate.

No idea what lying and cheating have do with this? Both are natural and neither are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Join a religion or start one if you want. Boring!

Bye bye

I’m not going to get stuck in some semantic mess. The root of this whole anitnatalist view is useful for self-reflection on the ‘why’ someone may choose to have children. Nothing more.

If children were created by some randomised process absent of parents then it would not be a question of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ at all. Let us say some machine. Let us go further and say a biological system. Further still, some biological reproductive system by creatures that have a primary instinct to reproduce. Such creatures may then evolve to have something they refer to as ‘choice’ … it is here where you seem to think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ overrides any personal perspective on life being ‘good’.

You do not have to agree but you would be wrong to imply an ‘imposition’ completely detached from an ethical stance. Words are related and I fear you are being far too liberal with their use to suit your means - the folly of ‘debate’ (which I have strong dislike for being nothing other than a political weapon used to bend people to your will).

Bye bye

The parents choose to have a child. That child has no say in whether it is born. That's an imposition by the parents on the child. — Tzeentch

No. This does not logically follow. I may think about killing people yet that thought does not make me a murderer.

The potential ability to commit murder is something we all possess yet it is not a reason to send everyone to prison.

The same goes for taking antinatalism to this degree of seriousness. It is a ‘tool’ to question the ethics involved on parenthood NOT a sensible argument against having children. Those who take antinatalism seriously to this degree are what I guess you would frame as ‘unethical’.

I gave a reasonable explanation why people choose to have children.

There are perfectly reasonable reasons that motivate people to have children. The main one being enjoyment of life in general. It is not a hard sell.

As a purely hypothetical investigation - to explore motivations for having children - the whole antinatalism thing is reasonable too.

Again, reason is hard to find in the motivations behind child-having. — Tzeentch

Sorry, probably not your quote? Lost it now :D

Not in the slightest. We have one life. Having children is an experience we can have. It is difficult and fulfilling to have children. People generally enjoy life and wish others to enjoy life too, hence having children is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as well as being part of a biological process.

Is there any particular area of philosophical thought you feel is frivolous?

That makes no sense … but neither does the OP :D

Meaning our ‘sense of the world’ is ‘in our brain’. We do NOT ‘see’ with our eyes nor ‘hear’ with our ears for example.

It seems to be the main issue here is an old one … arguing for dualism is a peculiar approach in this day and age. But who knows! Maybe there is some ‘real’ woo woo going in :D

I good by the reader should be made to understand what is being said, and often an even larger degree of charity in interpretation too.

The whole point of any discussion is to bridge across the gap from one mind to another. Some gaps are more worthy than others (and such judgements are necessarily subjective).

If someone asks for a definition and/or questions how a term is being used then it is on the author to attempt to offer a different line to bring the reader in or for them to judge the worth of bothering to do so. If everyone understands the core of your idea and position then it can mean either the point was not worth bringing up to begin with or you have exposed something deeply insightful/useful (the latter will be obvious to all).

My post was clear, precise and gave reasoning and a suggested resource for people to look at. No opinions.

If people do not wish to take it seriously (like yourself) not my issue.

Bye

No I didn’t read 13 oages of posts. I read the OP … was dumb and ill-informed. If someone else pointed this out good for them.