Thus says the person who forces the other person into the game...Blithely ignorant. — schopenhauer1

Ignorant of what? Of how YOU think the world is? Ignorance is a blatant refusal to recognise that the ‘harm’ you perceive is prediction error: the world is NOT going to respond the way you expect it to - not because it’s trying to enforce anything on YOU, but because YOU don’t get to decide how it should go. There is no ‘game’ except the one you’ve created for yourself. I know that something exists, and something is aware of existence. How I fit into that is what we’re all trying to figure out by interacting with the world and learning from our mistakes. Except you’ve decided that it’s easier to cling ignorantly to a conceptual world in which you are the tragic central character of a cautionary tale: ‘Look what you made me do’. What you’re ignoring is that YOU are not the central character of reality.

Existence for the already-born is a tricky business. We are used creatures. Our self-reflective capacities are used by our own human instincts to shit, eat, get bored, find a more comfortable setting, and seek pleasure. We are used by social institutions because social institutions are designed to find a way to take those instincts and self-reflective capacities and manipulate them to produce and consume for the benefit of keeping society going (i.e. labor, consumption, trade, maintenance of personal and industrial commodities and goods, education, family, entertainment purveyors, etc.). We are often used by family and relatives. We are often used by our employers in various ways to get the most work- causing stress. We are de facto forced into these social institutions, knowing that as social creatures, such that being a hermit in the woods, a homeless person in the streets, or a monk in a commune are most likely not viable (are sub-optimal) choices, so the de facto social milieu of the socio-economic normative reality is set. We are used in all sorts of ways. We are complicit, as in turn, we tend to use others and these institutions as well for our needs and wants. Then, on top of this using, there is collateral damage. There are physical and mental illnesses, disasters, accidents, miscalculations, bad decision-making, and all sorts of things that make even the bad "regular" outcome of being used and manipulated into an even worse endeavor. — schopenhauer1

This is victim mentality, or at least a form of ‘learned helplessness’. You’re simply unaware of your capacity for action, and unwilling to explore it when it presents itself. We are not hapless victims of ‘instinct’, circumstance or ‘social institutions’. These are not ‘forces’ beyond our control. We are ‘complicit’ because these are social concepts that we have formed in our own minds, in the same way that people conceptualised ‘gods’ from interactions with their environment when they failed to detect control. Here’s an article about ‘learned helplessness’ theory you might find interesting.

You can claim that this "using" is collaboration or "mutually beneficial relationships" but at the end of the day, they are de facto forced realities that we accept as necessary. Some (apparently you) go as far as giving some quasi-spiritual significance to these supposed "mutually beneficial relationships". I think this is simply turning a blind eye to what is really going on. The first (and most important) political decision was made for you, that was being born in the first place. Someone else thought you should go through life and be a part of this using process (not their perspective to use someone, but their unintended and unreflective action nonetheless). They had some reason (some X agenda) that this should be so if they weren't just outright negligent (accidental birth). Their decision majorly affecting another person, who must deal with it now. — schopenhauer1

This is not what I have claimed - this is what YOU conclude from my perspective. I never claimed what you describe as ‘using’ to be conscious collaboration, or that ‘mutually beneficial relationships’ were the norm - only that they were possible to achieve in reality. The fact that YOU cannot see how they are possible does not preclude them from being achievable. And all of this comes back to the self-contradictory, impractical negative ethics that says contributing to ‘harm’ is not an option. It is ONLY this flawed ethical perspective that positions us as ‘used creatures’. This can be changed, so why do you cling to it? What are you afraid of?

Now that we are alive, "forced" into dealing with the situation thereof, what do we do? One can commit suicide. That is usually a sub-optimal choice for most. We can keep going through the motions- that is an inevitable choice (that is to say, survival through work, consumption, and trade through the normative socio-economic channels that the current situation provides). One could drink the Kool-Aid and accept the givens and then even "praise them" like so many self-help books try to promote. In this "acceptance" view (which I deem to be promoted most by social institutions), one accepts the reality of what the situation is more-or-less (minor political tweaks not withstanding on whatever minor political spectrum you are on), and then move forward as a happy warrior. Thus making friends, climbing the mountain of one's own self-actualization, and abiding the day in the normative socio-economic setting is the about as good as it gets. I say rebellion is the best stance though. Always realize that one was placed here originally. Always remember that one is being used and is using. Now, I agree that community is part of humanity, and thus communally, I think it can be cathartic to rebel together. — schopenhauer1

I recognise that we cannot choose what happens to us, but we can choose how we respond. That we DO respond is important - whether we refer to it as ‘rebellion’ or as ‘collaboration’ depends on our awareness of how everything interacts and relates. To do anything effectively, we should begin by maximising our awareness of the current situation and accept it as real - regardless of whether we want it that way. From there, we can be in the best position to effect real and lasting change, because every action is then perceived as an INTERaction, rather than a battle against the ‘forces’ of the universe or society. There is a world of difference between accepting a situation as how it IS and how it should STAY. For me, Rosa Parks’ historical stance on the bus is a perfect example of awareness, connection and collaboration.

So antinatalism is not JUST about preventing harm (negative ethics), but can be a "positive" ethics in rallying against our being used. No, we cannot prevent "existence" itself, but we can recognize what is going on as a community and perhaps with this "rebellious stance" and understanding, we can be kinder and more understanding of each other and our situations. Schopenhauer thought the best stance was recognizing each other as "fellow-sufferers". We are in the same boat- and it isn't a collaboration panacea of bliss. It is rather being used by all sorts of factors and enduring and dealing with life. We can communally understand this and rebel. We can recognize what is going on and prevent others from dealing with as well. — schopenhauer1

What you’re describing here is victim mentality, not a ‘rebellious stance’. You’re not rebelling, you’re complaining - protesting, even. But protesting what? The necessity of existence, or the way we have constructed this existence?

I agree with Schopenhauer’s idea of recognising each other as ‘fellow-sufferers’, but I also think this is a first step in a much more productive interaction with the ‘boat’ as it were than simply preventing others from being born on that boat. Because there is more to ‘what is going on’ than the recognition that ‘we are in the same boat’. We have constructed this boat, and we are the captain and crew. The more we understand what we’ve built and how it sails, the more it can become a ‘collaboration panacea’.

So your ‘positive ethics’ has no principles for correct action in the real world. You think you’re doing something, but you’re achieving nothing in reality - everything you think you’re doing is happening only in your mind.

People can lack awareness of something. I didn't doubt that. The point was to try to not cause harm. That is all. I am not denying that some people might lack awareness how or who they are harming. — schopenhauer1

That doesn’t answer the question.

By an ethical system I simply mean whatever ethics a person supports. It can even be completely individual; that person being the only one in the world to follow a particular system. You bind yourself in the sense that if you act outside it, you are inconsistent. — Congau

So would you say that ‘consistency’ is an ethical principle or something else?

I’ve said that I believe existence has an underlying impetus, but that’s not the same thing at all.
— Possibility

What's the difference? They sound the same to me — khaled

An underlying impetus is not goal-directed, but neither is it random. Like a Mandelbrot set (only six-dimensional), it has a simple pattern that leads to an ever-increasing complexity without a definite result. The diversity comes from the point at which each ‘section’ of the pattern resists the impetus.

You can't reduce suffering to below zero yes? Antinatalism proposes a method for reducing suffering to 0. You can't beat that — khaled

The method of antinatalism only reduces possible suffering to zero for a non-existent possibility. You can’t do anything with that. It’s a strawman.

I’ve argued that a sound ethical system would not contradict its own principles
— Possibility

Where do my arguments do that? — khaled

Here

‘don’t harm’
— Possibility

This was — khaled

While you exist, you cannot avoid contributing to what others would refer to as ‘harm’. I think we can agree on this. Your ethical system’s principle of ‘don’t harm’ (an ethical principle being the foundation of any action) is fundamentally impractical to anyone who exists if they decide to act in any capacity at all. The very nature of ‘harm’ - that it is a subjective evaluation of action, and not just by the one acted upon - makes it impossible to act in any real circumstance. You cannot be certain that someone will not be harmed by your action, thus there is no possible act that ensures ethical behaviour. And yet ethics is entirely about how to act.

Your ethical perspective is dependent upon being the ONLY ethical perspective.

positive ethics and negative ethics must work in harmony,
— Possibility

How? They will contradict each other by definition — khaled

No they won’t. Negative ethics is about what not to do. Positive ethics is about what to do instead. A positive ethics that doesn’t have a corresponding negative ethics permits everything. Conversely, a negative ethics without a corresponding positive ethics provides no incentive to act (which defeats the purpose of ethics).

As an example, ‘reduce ignorance, isolation and exclusion’ is a negative ethics, whose corresponding positive ethics - ‘increase awareness, connection and collaboration’ - works in harmony with it to enable actions that violate neither.

The only thing I swept aside was the idea that if an action takes place before the person to be harmed exists that it is allowed — khaled

On what grounds? If an action takes place before the person exists, then it is not an action against that person, but against something else.

I am not opposed to if someone wants to cause pain to oneself, but I am opposed causing it for others if possible. That is the difference here. — schopenhauer1

The trick is understanding the difference between the pain that we cause to ourselves through our own ignorance, isolation or exclusion, and the pain that others inflict on us as a result of their ignorance, isolation or exclusion. It isn’t about finding someone to blame. Let me ask you: If the capacity to choose between paths was available, but we lacked the capacity to be aware of that choice (of either the capacity to choose, the range to choose from or the paths available), then who is responsible for the path taken in absence of awareness?

to justify that because there is always some collateral damage, that therefore everything is contaminated, and thus any harm is permitted is nonsensical. — schopenhauer1

That’s not what I’m saying at all - your conclusion that ‘any harm is permitted’ is not the same one that I’m drawing here. It isn’t about whether harm or pain is permitted. It’s about understanding WHY it is painful or harmful from their perspective, and then considering what that subjective experience means from a broader perspective - ie. when you take into account everyone’s experience, including that of whoever appears to be responsible for the ‘harm’. Being aware of how actions that contribute to ‘harm’ are positioned in relation to everything else that’s going on from others’ POV reduces the chance of ignorantly contributing to ‘harm’ elsewhere when we respond. There are no isolated or autonomous individuals - every action we initiate is an interaction on many different levels, whether we’re aware of them all or not. It’s not an excuse to be ignorant, but a challenge to be more aware.

So you take my words out of context now. ALL harm onto another person that would be harmed otherwise. Period. The goal is not end of existence. The goal is not causing any harm to another person. This does not happen by not procreating. — schopenhauer1

Thank you for clarifying. But this ‘other person’ you’re talking about never existed, and never will exist. It’s like your very own personal strawman. So you’ve only reduced your own capacity to interact with existence.

You keep trying to refer only to antinatalism, but this thread is about the negative ethics that supports it, so when I extend your argument, I’m applying your principles to all your actions, not just this imaginary one that you pride yourself on. The only way to not cause harm to any other person is to not exist, or at least not interact with existence. Yet you exist and you interact. Whatever the reason, you remain as a walking contradiction to your own principles. And you expect others to believe that your principles reflect the truth? Nope.

No, you are doing "good" because you are not causing harm. Not causing harm is always good. You can be doing good by NOT doing anything. I am not asking people to be salvation for existence itself. In fact, that is a category error. I agree that existence will exist. The ethic isn't about that though. It is about preventing harm when one can. Not procreating perfectly prevents all harm for another person who might otherwise be harmed. — schopenhauer1

That’s not ‘doing good’, that’s fearing your own existence. You’re imagining possibilities for action and then excluding them all because they might be seen as ‘wrong’ by some possible perspective at some point, and you think that makes you ‘good’. I’m not asking you to be ‘salvation’ for existence either, whatever that could be. I’m only expecting you to participate positively while you’re here, instead of focusing on trying to convince others to avoid opportunities to act, just in case someone might not like what you did.

I understand what it’s like to be afraid of putting a foot wrong - to be aware of so many possibilities that we’re paralysed by indecision, but then to be so conscious of how other people feel that the only thing we can be sure of is that someone will be ‘harmed’ by anything we decide to do. And then we ‘feel’ their pain as well as our own. I get that it seems like ‘doing good’ to try and limit our interactions by the principles of non-harm and non-aggression. But you’re allowing everyone else to dictate your life. For someone who values autonomy above all, I wonder how you justify this.

‘Harm’ and ‘force’ are subjective evaluations by those with whom we interact. So these principles are based purely on what everyone else might think about our actions. We’re not really living up to our potential like that - we’re only reflecting our environment, like a glass ball, or a reed in the wind. I’ve been there - it seems like the right thing to do, but it hurts to look out at the world and wonder why no one seems to really care who I am or what I want. For me, I was eventually given the space and opportunity to see who ‘I’ am when I’m not being what everyone else expects me to be. I think each ‘individual’ deserves that. I don’t see this as ‘autonomy’, though - mainly because we need to see it reflected back at us through the eyes of someone we trust. And it took me almost twenty years to even summon the courage to properly look. I think it’s about being aware of our unique journey through the world, and what we can offer freely to those with whom we interact, without obligation and without fear. We each have a unique combination of ability, talent and experience to offer those around us - they just don’t know it yet, and we’re often too busy doing what we think they want or need, to find out for ourselves.

I no longer think we should be so afraid of causing what other people think is ‘harm’ that we do nothing. That’s not living. Pain, for instance, isn’t ‘bad’ in itself. It’s prediction error: notification from the system that it requires more energy, attention or effort than was budgeted for. This doesn’t justify inflicting pain on others, but it does mean that sometimes what we initially evaluate as ‘harm’ is not necessarily as harmful as we think. Pain allows us to grow, change, improve and to understand the world better - not so we can just avoid pain or other prediction error, but in order to interact with the world and help others to predict more accurately. Prediction error is just evidence that we haven’t yet perfected this.

I think you and I are not so different. It seems that you genuinely want to only do what’s best for everyone, and this is your way of evaluating that. But I’ve learned that it’s better to act and be wrong than to not act at all. We should forgive ourselves and others for errors of ignorance, offer our energy, attention and effort to repair connections when we make mistakes, and recognise the pain, humiliation and loss of prediction error as a sign that we’re learning more about how to interact with the world. This is life. Otherwise we’re all just rocks floating in space.

When people act based on positive ethics, they sometimes make mistakes and they can’t control how the world responds. But if they base their actions on negative ethics, then they don’t act at all. That’s not living, it’s not ‘doing good’ and it’s not autonomy - it’s fear.

It's all about the margins. You are not in charge of existence as a whole, just what you are able to do as an agent. You are able to prevent harm for another person by simply preventing birth. That is all the argument is for. You are overstepping what the argument is even advocating. — schopenhauer1

I’m aware of this. But you are not preventing harm for another person by denying their existence, because that ‘person’ does not exist. So you’re not doing any ‘good’ here. You are not doing anything, so how can you be an agent? You’re denying possibilities because you believe the cost is too high. That’s your prerogative, but rest assured the universe will continue to exist without your involvement. ‘Harm’ and ‘force’ will still be experienced, as a result of the inevitable interaction between ignorant and isolated, ‘individual’ will. We have the capacity to change that, but we have to recognise our capacity as an agent, and then do something with it.

Negative ethics on its own is about denying agency, which kind of defeats the purpose. You cannot do or be ‘good’ by refusing to do or be anything in relation to existence.

ALL harm for any future progeny can be prevented. Unless you don't have a concept of a future or a person that CAN be born into that future, I don't see what explanation you need. Again, morality is at the margins- that is to say, what people as agents can actually do. Of course, being that morality is not a big utilitarian "greatest good" game, what you can acutally "do" is not about greatest good, but not using people for some outcome you want to see. — schopenhauer1

What you’re talking about is only preventing harm to your own progeny - not preventing ALL harm. That’s hardly the same thing. In fact, it barely rates a mention in terms of preventing ALL harm. What are you hoping to achieve? An end to existence?

Okay, you seem to be yourself very conflicted. I don't know what to say to that. I agree with your sentiments that people can collaborate in other ways. Yet you somehow justify procreation through some odd "recognition of reality" that you seem to be railing against at the same time. Again, I don't know what you're trying to prove here other than people procreate and that somehow they are "justified" but for some obtuse reason of "existence" or some such thing. — schopenhauer1

Where’s the conflict? Just because I understand why people will procreate doesn’t mean I’m justifying procreation. I can evaluate their actions based on my own value system, but I’m not going to expect them to live by my ethical perspective just because I’m convinced it’s a more accurate reflection of reality. I can’t change their actions with my ethical perspective - all I can do is help them to see why their ethical perspective does not correspond to reality. So my concern here is with your ethical perspective, and the unrealistic expectations that you have for the world because of it.

We all know ALL harm can be prevented by simply not procreating. — schopenhauer1

THIS is my problem. We don’t know this at all. Harm continues to occur regardless of procreation - I’m not even sure what gives you this idea. You’ll have to explain.

We agreed that it revolves around autonomy of the individual being violated. The negative ethics revolves around that.. Why not just have a child for X reason? Because we don't use individuals like that.[/quote]

I certainly didn’t agree that autonomy of the individual was either achievable or important, and certainly not prior to existence. I thought we agreed that striving for individual autonomy is impractical or at least ‘messy’ in reality? The way I see it, ‘individual autonomy’ is an illusion - any perception that focuses on it as a goal is ignorant of reality, and guaranteed to suffer from prediction error in interacting with that reality.

People decide to have a child for all sorts of reasons - but most of them stem from the fearful realisation that individual autonomy is either not a priority or not possible. Anyone still striving for individual autonomy as a priority has no reason to procreate, sure - but that striving becomes a Sisyphean effort. Most people eventually recognise through prediction error that the world doesn’t work like that, and they adjust their conceptual system to better suit reality. Procreation is often a key coping mechanism at this point. But beyond our fear is the realisation that procreation is a feeble, half-assed effort to wrestle some form of relevance from our ‘individual’ participation in existence, and that we are capable of much more effective participation in far more collaborative achievements than simply creating another individual.

Here's the thing, you are really over-emphasizing the idea that antinatalism is trying to "blame" parents. You are not quite getting where the emphasis is. Antinatalism is trying to inform the parents that be simply preventing birth, they can prevent harm. There isn't supposed to be a post-facto blame of what has already occurred. I see that as a big glitch here in your reasoning. You are not even putting the focus where antinatalism is putting the focus. It's not about blaming things on people or holding them in contempt, etc. — schopenhauer1

That’s fair. I do get that your focus is prevention, but you’re talking about a ‘parent’ in relation to an existing child, not a possible one. You’re trying to argue that enabling the possibility of existence would constitute an act of ‘force’ or ‘harm’ by parents against a non-existent will, and that all subsequent acts against a subsequent will are therefore caused by the parents. There is something very misguided about this in relation to what constitutes any action against a non-existent will. You’re convinced that a will doesn’t have to exist for someone to act against it, but this just doesn’t make any sense, and there is no evidence for it. Genetic modifications are not interacting with a later will, but with an existing potential. And there is no potential for one to interact with prior to enabling the possibility of existence. So unless you can show how we interact with a possible existence other than enabling or preventing the possibility, then I can’t see how this is an accurate assessment of a moral act of the parent towards the possibility of a child.

The way I see it, you’re trying to convince parents to act against the possibility of a child - to do what they can to prevent the potential existence of another individual, because this is the only way you can see to effectively act against the possibility of harm. I’m okay with this, but it has nothing to do with any moral act of a parent against their actual child prior to the existence of that child.

Parents conceive and birth children- check. — schopenhauer1

When something is conceived and birthed, someone becomes born- check. — schopenhauer1

Only conception and birth from the parents or intentional efforts by fertility clinic which still need the desire from at least one parent- check. — schopenhauer1

At the end of the day, it is the will of the parent that allows the birth to take place. If birth was fully unpreventable, then you may have a point. But practically all birth is. — schopenhauer1

You keep lumping conception and birth together as if it’s the same thing. I get that you’re trying to avoid the abortion debate, but it’s more than a little bit ridiculous to talk about cause and effect in such broad strokes here. There are so many instances of cause and effect between intention, conception and birth that impact on the existence of the child. When parents intend to conceive, they don’t necessarily succeed, and if they do conceive, a child is not necessarily born. The conscious intent of a parent to conceive is also not the only explanation for conception.

I’m not denying that the will of the parent allows or enables the birth to take place. I’m saying that the will of the parent isn’t necessary for conception to take place, and so the will of the parent is not the cause of conception. Between conception and birth is another story, so you do need to navigate the possible/potential/actual distinction of existence if you want to get from the intent of the parent to conception and birth as a complete moral action.

Again, you have not explained your non-agent based system which apparently leaves morality of individual agents as irrelevant. This can be used to justify anything- the murder was the cause of the universe from unknown multiple causations. There is no need to do that. Without the agent, the violation would not have occurred. You want to have this holisitic perspective of reality, but even if that were true from a birdseye view (which we cannot prove), existence is felt and experienced at the individual level. There is no way of getting around it. The main reason this is dangerous, is people will then use it as an excuse to not have any responsibility or accountability to whether they cause harm to others. — schopenhauer1

I get that the absence of a moral agent is a frightening thought, and I understand the need to have actions justified. The reality is that holding others morally or even legally responsible/accountable for the harm they contribute to is not as effective as we would like it to be in preventing harm. If someone specifically intended to do something they were capable of doing, then no amount of moral, legal or even physical obstacles could realistically prevent it. They would eventually find a way AND justify it from their perspective - such is human capacity. So you see, your perspective of their morality IS irrelevant in preventing harm. And you’ve even admitted that the moral perspective you’re advocating is impractical and contradictory in reality, so your ethics has nothing to stand on - which is why you’re arguing to prevent individual existence as the only way you can see to effectively prevent harm.

I’m not saying there is nothing we can do to prevent harm any more than you are. You’ve backed yourself into a corner, though. You can’t prevent existence - only individual existence. So your argument that the individual is more important or valuable than existence unravels at this point.

But in my view, it is that existence is individual which causes suffering, not that the individual exists.
— Possibility

You have not proved this. You simply assert collaboration, et al. It is pie in the sky and in fact is part of the problem. It is using people for an agenda, or overlooking people's autonomy. Actually, it is self-justifying. If there is no individual, there is no abuse happening, therefore, don't worry about it. Case closed. I don't think so. — schopenhauer1

There is a difference between self-justification and collaborating with reality. Self-justification is when we deal with cognitive dissonance by ignoring, isolating and excluding information. I haven’t denied what is happening - I’m just not referring to it as ‘abuse’ or ‘force’. That’s not excluding information, it’s looking at ALL the information contributing to the event without evaluating it in relation to an ethical perspective first.

What you appear to be doing, on the other hand, is excluding any contributors to an event that are not ‘moral agents’ in order to justify your assertion that these moral agents are the ‘cause’ of that event.

Your entire ethical perspective is built on principles that even you admit cause cognitive dissonance when applied to reality. And yet you continue to justify those principles by ignoring, isolating and excluding information that contradicts them. ‘Aggression is wrong, UNLESS the intention behind that aggression is to prevent more aggression - then aggression is not wrong’ is an example of self-justification as a result of cognitive dissonance.

Your problem is with the amount of ‘suffering’ that appears to necessarily come with the existence of the individual. I believe this ‘suffering’ is a result of prediction error - as each ‘individual’ predicts, tests and then adjusts their mental concepts to better correspond with reality. The more we interact with reality, the more prediction error we experience. It’s in our best interests, then, to continually adjust our concepts to suit our interactions with reality, so that our predictions are more refined and accurate as a result. This is easier said than done, of course. Pain, loss, lack and humiliation are all signs of prediction error - avoiding these signs that we need to adjust our concepts is not the answer to reducing suffering - taking the steps to understand where the prediction error occurs and then adjust our concepts is.

There are some concepts that we are having immense difficulty adjusting, though, despite the prediction error we experience. The concept of the ‘individual’, an indivisible conceptualisation of ourselves as isolated from the rest of the universe, is understandably one of the most resistant. But there is nothing in my most objective understanding of reality (if I’m honest) that supports either the idea that I am actually isolated in any way from the reality of my experience, or that I am indivisible - except in how I subjectively, socially, politically, ideologically, logically or morally conceptualise that reality. I can’t prove that to you, unfortunately.

What this broader understanding of reality this leads me to (eventually) is that I don’t matter as an indivisible, isolated existence in the universe: I matter as an aware, connected and collaborating participant in the unfolding universe, in the whole of existence.

It doesn't matter! If I enabled you to be somewhere you had no choice in, that is that. — schopenhauer1

Okay, but then what does it have to with the principle of non-aggression? Enabling you to be somewhere, whether you thought you had a choice in being there or not, is not an act of aggression. If I fall asleep on the train and end up five stops past where I wanted to be - is that the train’s fault for enabling me to be there? Or the train driver’s fault?

If you create the conditions for someone to have X thing happen (punched in the face), then you were the person who caused it, whether indirectly or not. The "force" is the X event of being born. What caused the conditions for that birth? The parent. "Who" created the conditions for the child to be born in the first place? The parent? — schopenhauer1

Three criteria to establish a cause-effect relationship:

• The cause must occur before the effect.
• Whenever the cause occurs, the effect must also occur.
• There must not be another factor that can explain the relationship between the cause and effect.

So, enable is not the same thing as cause. You can cause an effect, but scientifically you can’t conceptualise an event and treat it like a single effect with a single cause. When you arrange the conditions for an event to occur, you are enabling that event, not causing it. It’s a common misconception - a case of anthropocentrism, that we are the sole ‘cause’ of every event in which we are the only conscious contributor to the conditions. It’s a limitation of our legal and moral systems, for obvious reasons, but it isn’t reality. There are many more interactions that contributed to the conditions for that birth than the parents’ conscious actions - and some of those interactions continue to contribute to the existence of that child throughout their life, even if the parents don’t. That these are not conscious contributors should not exclude them as contributors - even though you’re specifically looking for ‘someone’ capable of consciously preventing the event.

I recognise that I appear to be splitting hairs here. But when you charge a parent with ‘violating a principle of non-aggression’ for contributing to a collaborative event, there is something amiss with the conceptualisation. I’m trying to show where the error occurs in relation to reality - not in relation to a moralistic system. So, while I recognise that the parents are considered the ‘moral agents’ within your ethical perspective, the fact that it doesn’t correspond to a broader experience of reality challenges the validity of the ethical perspective itself. When you’re looking at the situation from within that ethical perspective, it’s like trying to make the bed while you’re still under the covers - so I understand your frustration.

The parents "BLORCED" the child. I don't care what the actual term used is, the meaning I am conveying is that the child itself had no decision in the matter. It was someone else who made that decision for the child and caused the X event (being born) to happen for the child. This is a violation of non-aggression because at the moment of birth, an effect/affect has happened to a person caused from someone else, that affects that person's whole life and did not involve the actual participant being affected (the child). — schopenhauer1

Yes, the child had no conscious decision in the matter. But no, it was not ‘someone’ else who made a decision for the child. That’s an assumption based on a moralistic perspective of reality. You’re saying that a ‘moral agent’ MUST be held accountable for ‘causing’ an event instead of simply causing an effect that contributes to the event - and it can’t be a ‘god’ or any other collaboration of concepts that has no ‘actual’ individual existence, let alone moral agency. But in reality there is no individual agent who ‘caused’ the event of being born (existence) to happen for the child.

So no, this is NOT a violation of non-aggression because at the moment of birth/existence, an event has happened to a create a person that was a collaborative effort which DID include the pre-conscious action of several actual contributors that continue to constitute the person created, as well as the conscious or unconscious action of the parents and a number of other conditions of which no agent in relation to the birth/existence of that child may be consciously aware - not even the parents.

When viewed from within the moralistic system, the only way to make sense of this reality is to exclude the interaction of non-moral agents. But then it isn’t reality, is it? And what you deem to be ‘wrong’ with the interaction of the world is precisely where you have ignored, isolated and excluded what is real about the interaction of the world.

If the child comes into the universe and upon the millisecond of their arrival, the child was punched in the face, and it is well known that upon birth, one gets punched in the face, is that forcing the child to get punched in the face? Now extend that over the course of a lifetime, and instead of a punch it is all suffering. You don't need a will to go "prior against". You just need to cause something to happen to someone else (that extends into autonomous adulthood) that is not ascertained by the person this is affecting. — schopenhauer1

No, it isn’t forcing the child to get punched in the face. The punch in the face is a separate event in which one can identify an act of force. This act of force occurs in time against the actual, existing child. Using passive language doesn’t change the fact that someone does the punching (not necessarily those who contributed to the child coming into the universe), and associating the punch with the child’s arrival doesn’t make them the same event with the same agent.

What do you mean by ‘prior against’? That doesn’t make any sense.

It matters not whether there was bad intent regarding procreation. The fact that someone was forced is what matters- good intentions or not. That's why the analogy of the obstacle course is in fact apt. Would it matter if prior to that person's existence, there was no actual person? What if I upped the stakes like Khaled has stated, and said that the child would immediately upon existence experience worse things (let's say the parent thought it was good, but the child didn't)? Is that right? It is not intent. It is the fact that it is the violation of non-aggression PLUS the fact that one is causing ALL conditions of harm on another person. Both big nos to do to someone else. — schopenhauer1

But you haven’t shown that someone was forced. And again, you’re using passive language to conceal the agent of any force the child may experience immediately after existence, implying that this force (which appears to act against an existing will in time) is the result of bringing the child into existence in the first place. The child’s existence enables an act of force, sure - but it doesn’t cause the act.

I get that you’re looking for a way to prevent further suffering, and that you’ve logically determined the most effective way is to prevent individual existence in the first place. But in my view, it is that existence is individual which causes suffering, not that the individual exists.

If someone kidnapped you and brought you to this (what they perceived to be) amazing obstacle course and said you cannot get off it because it will be as good for you as it was for them, are they right in doing this to you because they thought it was good for you? No it isn't. So the force doesn't have to have malintent. I understand well the various reasonings for not thinking of birth as "forcing" someone into anything. But that is the point, to provide a perspective they weren't thinking of earlier. I don't know, slavery might have been thought of as justified at some point too based on conceptions that they didn't consider. (That is being real charitable of course). — schopenhauer1

You keep coming up with analogies that cannot be the same thing. If you chose instead NOT to bring me to this obstacle course, I would still exist, and still have a will that I can exercise independent of you. I could even choose to go on the obstacle course myself, if I thought it might be good. But there is no will to go against prior to existence, and no will that is ‘freed’ by preventing that existence. That’s not a reason to procreate, but it is a reason why you cannot accuse those who do procreate of ‘force’.

So, I don't think the force matters as to the intent of the force. Someone can force something on someone without knowing it. They may be blissfully ignorant that this is the case. In fact, that might be a reason to keep promoting antinatalism, so people won't be ignorant of it anymore! — schopenhauer1

So you’re saying that ‘force’ is in the eye of the beholder? In that case, you can only know that you’ve caused someone to endure something once the action is in the past and one evaluates that action from their own perspective. That’s not force. I’ve already agreed that procreation is an act of ignorance - but it’s not ignorance of a will that doesn’t exist.

In a murder, you can say it was also hard to define "when".. What makes it murder is a couple factors that have to come together- intent, planning, the actual act itself.. etc. Maybe the guy survived actually, but the doctor did something that actually caused the final demise of the person. — schopenhauer1

Exactly - if the actual cause of death was proven to be a specific act committed by the doctor, then what was initially thought to be ‘murder’ could be downgraded to ‘manslaughter’. So it does have to be crisp. Incidentally, the manslaughter charge doesn’t necessarily shift culpability to the doctor, of course.

What you need to create another person is two parents. At which point you deem the "force" is another matter (conception, gestation, primary consciousness, secondary consciousness, birth, identity, etc.). — schopenhauer1

But you still haven’t shown that the parents committed a conscious act of ‘force’. You show the parents, and then you show the ‘suffering individual’ who didn’t HAVE to exist (and I agree with you there), and you expect us to ‘naturally’ conclude that there was an act of ‘force’ committed by the parents in creating that suffering individual? Nope.

I will agree that the parents contributed significantly, and are primarily responsible for that ‘individual’ from the point they become aware of its actual OR potential existence. But you have yet to convince me that they’ve acted with aggression or force against an individual.

Ok then existence is a concept made up by another concept. A concept squared. The point is "existence" doesn't have a subjective experience as far as we know. Do you think existence feels hurt when someone doesn't have a kid? If not then why should we prioritize existence's "goal" over our own? — khaled

I’m wondering where you got the idea that I think existence has a goal. I’ve said that I believe existence has an underlying impetus, but that’s not the same thing at all. And I’m only saying we ‘should’ align our conscious actions with that impetus because I believe doing so will ALWAYS reduce suffering - it just might not be your suffering in particular at the time. I will say it again: no one HAS to do anything.

When I use the term ‘existence’, I’m referring to everything that exists, including you and me, your great-great grandfather’s dog, and a dwarf star in a distant solar system, for instance. Yes, it’s conceptual, but it’s an all-inclusive concept. I’m not saying that ‘existence’ wants us to procreate - in fact I would suggest the opposite, and I’ve already laid out my argument there, so I’m not sure why you keep assuming I’m arguing for procreation.

This thread was about a particular ethical perspective that supports the common antinatalist argument, which suggests that procreation is ‘forcing’ others into existence and suffering against their will, and therefore violates the negative ethics of ‘don’t use force/aggression’ and ‘don’t harm’ - which, it is argued, should overrule any positive ethics. I’ve argued that a sound ethical system would not contradict its own principles, and that positive ethics and negative ethics must work in harmony, otherwise it demonstrates that the principles themselves are flawed. I’ve also argued that these principles of force/aggression and harm will ALWAYS break down in application to reality - but everyone seems to just sweep that aside as if it’s insignificant. It’s like everyone’s forgotten that ethics is an area of philosophy, whose ultimate aim is a workable understanding of the universal reality of existence - not a prescription to ‘fix’ reality, to make it more suited to our needs.

No, no, no. If someone murders someone else, it is not the universe's fault and thus no one is directly culpable. That itself is a cop-out. — schopenhauer1

I’m aware of that. If someone murders someone else, you can trace it back to a single, conscious act of force against an actual existence, which renders them culpable. What you’re referring to here is not the same thing - I’m asking you to show me a single, conscious act of ‘force’ against an actual existence which would render the actor culpable, and you’re talking about the ‘immorality’ of a collaborative event.

Don't create the new person, period. If it's live birth, it's parents. If it is a test tube baby, it's the components of that. It is not hard to point to what was a direct cause of birth of something. — schopenhauer1

Again, you’re referring to collaborative efforts, not an act of ‘force’. I’m trying to point out that what you’re calling ‘immoral’ cannot be identified as such because there is no single, conscious act of ‘force’ by an agent in time that can be defined as procreation. It IS hard to point to what act was a direct cause of the birth of something. You can point to key contributors, sure. But you have yet to pinpoint the act of ‘force’ you seem to think exists here.

All politics, and everything else starts from being born in the first place. This HAS to be addressed for anything else to matter.. — schopenhauer1

I agree that our being born should not be declared evidence that ‘procreation is good/necessary’. In order for our being born to matter, our own existence must be deemed our BEST opportunity to effect change in the world - not simply a step towards ‘creating’ someone else with a maybe better chance of achieving. It’s a cop-out, a cowardly attempt to pass the buck, as well as ignorance and hubris to consider that the best possible use of my capacity for awareness, connection and collaboration is to simply continue my genetic existence...

But I disagree that it’s an act of force.

You seem to be describing this ‘force’ as an event which is in reality a collaboration of events, each with their own ‘force’ of collaborative action.
— Possibility

That can be said of any event. What prevents all parts of the event(s) leading to a full existence is not procreating in the first place from the very start. — schopenhauer1

Yes - this is why you cannot declare the ‘force’ of an entire event concept to be ‘immoral’. It DOES matter what constitutes that ‘force’, because your evaluation of a collaborative force as immoral renders all participants culpable. If you want to attack the morality of a single participant, then you need to address their specific, conscious contribution to that ‘force’. Which means that you need to consider their interaction with the event well before it occurred in time.

I'm sorry but this doesn't have much bearing here. When someone is born, THAT is the force. Preventing the "force" of the action (which is the time the child comes into existence). At that time X (when the child comes into existence) is when the force takes place. By preventing the "force" one is preventing that X time from happening. It is as simple as that. — schopenhauer1

What exactly do you believe constitutes the ‘force’ of a child coming into existence? Is it labour? Is it the whole pregnancy? Is it conception? You seem to be describing this ‘force’ as an event which is in reality a collaboration of events, each with their own ‘force’ of collaborative action. You can’t just declare that ‘force’ means something different here. To prevent the ‘force’ of collaborative action that constitutes a child being born, you would need to address more than the morality of the parents at the time that child is born. By then it’s too late.

My problem with this, besides the major lack of real evidence of an underlying Way is that it can simply be manipulated into anything. So, if I make a decision that makes me suffer, you can say, "Ah, schopenhauer1 was not conforming with the Way!". Or alternatively, you can say, "Ah, don't worry schopenhauer1, in the end it is all a part of the Way!". As you see both versions of this can be used, and it would not matter whether there was a Way or not, just something someone uses as a justification for why your action was "wrong" or why it wasn't "wrong". — schopenhauer1

If we perceive something ‘wrong’ in our experience of reality, then there is something wrong with our perception of it - not with the experience or with reality. The thing about suffering is that we’ve been deluded into thinking that we should be avoiding it, not working through it. When we were children, we suffered from prediction error all the time: we conceptualised the world, experienced pain, loss and humiliation because we got it wrong, and then made adjustments to our concepts. As adults we think we’re past that - we have created a system outside of ourselves - so when our concepts clash with reality, we think the fault lies with reality. And so we continue to suffer from prediction error and complain that the world doesn’t match the predictions of our ‘foolproof’ system.

I’m certainly not suggesting that we passively accept the world as it IS. I’m suggesting that we strive for a better understanding of how the world WORKS BEST TOGETHER, in order to more effectively collaborate in achieving that. The ‘individual’ is irrelevant to an existence without ‘suffering’ - I think we can agree on that. So an individual without suffering cannot exist. You’ve chosen the individual - I’ve chosen existence because it’s the only certainty I have.

You can absolutely know for certain that:
some amount of suffering > no amount of suffering
And procreation takes you from the right hand side to the left — khaled

There is nothing in this statement that can be absolutely known for certain. The symbol > refers to a logical value relation that is dependent on the value structure to which it refers. ‘Suffering’ is also a subjective concept of value, which is commonly negative in relation to the individual to whom it refers.

So anything you can KNOW from this statement is entirely dependent on the value attributed to each element by each individual. There are three main ways you can go from here: you can attempt to isolate each individual as the master of their own reality; you can attempt a majority consensus of value structures (an ethical system) as the most probable structure of reality; OR you can hypothesise a dimensional structure to reality that exists regardless of individual or ‘majority’ relational structures of value.

I’m working on the third option because I think it’s more scientifically sound, but I understand that the probability option appears more ‘logical’ to many people. The problem is that ‘logic’ is itself a limited value structure in relation to our experience of reality - it cannot fully account for how human beings relate to each other. This is because probability is structured to ignore, isolate or exclude anomalous information.

What does our ability to end existence have to do with whether or not it's morally fine to have children

the individual is more important than existence.
— Possibility

I agree with that. It's what I'm saying here:
I don't think any concept's "goals" are significant. America doesn't have goals. Humanity doesn't have goals. "Nature" doesn't have goals.
— khaled

"Existence" is just another concept that doesn't actually have goals or a will but to whom we like to ascribe those properties. Humans actually have a subjective experience, goals and a will though so we should focus on those first I think. — khaled

An individual is as much a concept as existence. That we only talk about humans as having a ‘will’ and then prioritise that will is a symptom of anthropocentrism in how we conceptualise our experience.

We have focused on our own subjective experience, goals and will for thousands of years, continuing to ignore, isolate and exclude the subjective experience, goals and will of others as it suits us. What our ‘suffering’ (from prediction error) and impending eco-crisis demonstrates is that the individual is NOT more important than existence - that we are an integral part of ‘something’ broader, which we are too self-absorbed to acknowledge because we might be humbled by it - and that might cause us to ‘suffer’ even more.

That ‘the individual is more important than existence’ is a gross misconception that causes more suffering than it can hope to remove by discouraging procreation on moral grounds. That the individual is more important to the individual is obvious. But the individual is just another concept drawn from how we perceive reality.

If we are certain of nothing else, we are certain that something exists. I’m thinking we should focus on that first.

It’s exactly because it’s valid from an object standpoint that it can be called a demand. It’s not my subjective understanding of what is happening to person about to make an ethical choice that makes up the demand. I may be wrong so I’m not making any demands, only the ethical system that I subscribe to is making demands. If I support a system that demands Thou shalt not lie (just an example), I’m only saying that if x is a lie, you shouldn’t tell x. I’m not making a judgment about whether x is actually a lie in a particular situation, so I’m not making a concrete demand on you.

A sound ethical system, in my opinion, should do exactly what you are saying, namely take into account the perspective of the actor. I don’t know what makes a person choose to act a certain way, so I have no right to judge or demand anything in a concrete case. All I can say is that IF x, y and z are the case, then the ethical system I subscribe to demands action A to be taken.

This thread is about the distinction between positive and negative ethics and my claim is that negative ethics (the system, not a mere person like myself) can make demands, whereas positive ethics is mostly restricted to make recommendations. — Congau

So are you saying that when an individual subscribes to an ethical system, they bind themselves to that system and are therefore no longer in a position to question the demands of that system? Does an ethical system exist in and of itself? What is an individual’s relationship to that ethical system?

The way I see it, the act of making a demand such as ‘thou shalt not lie’, writing it down and sharing it with others reduces the information of the much more complex ethical system that inspired the demand to a series of one dimensional marks on a page in history. So the act of trying to understand what that demand means regardless of when it was written, by whom and in what language suggests that there is a more objective standpoint than may be reliably conveyed by the demand. It’s like drawing three straight sides and wondering why no one else understands that it’s a table - the real information isn’t in the lines, but in the complex, multi-dimensional relational structures that inform those lines.

Plus, evidence of conflicting ethical systems suggests that there is a more objective standpoint than this particular ethical system may even be aware of. The perspective of a particular ethical or value system is not an objective standpoint, it only claims to be. That there is something ‘wrong’ with the world is an indication that an ethical system is subjective. As a relational system of subjective value structures, it’s limited - firstly by a certain amount of ignorance, isolation and exclusion in the structure itself, and secondly by the reductive process required to make demands.

My claim is that both positive and negative ethics should work in harmony to reach an objective ethical standpoint. Where they contradict or cancel each other out, the subscribed ethics are necessarily flawed. The idea of ethics is to eventually arrive at a conceptualisation of reality, particularly in relation to behaviour, that works in practice. I don’t see the ethical argument behind antinatalism as working towards this at all.

But how are people put into this situation in the first place? You already recognized you are an antinatalist, so I am guessing this is something that takes place after the first option has already been not followed? — schopenhauer1

Just because I agree that procreation is not a good choice doesn’t mean I would refer to myself as an antinatalist. Antinatalism argues from a moral standpoint, but I don’t see it as a moral issue. The way I see it, how people got into a situation is only relevant to how they should act once there IF how they act has contributed to how they got there. If it’s not something you can change (ie. it happened in the past, before you were aware of its impact) then why waste effort on it that could be better spent collaborating to effect change where you can?

But this is not what I said. I said that you do not have the choice to have no choices. Again, from what I said earlier, and you keep overlooking this: Like I said, forcing others into a trial-and-error scenario because you like it, or you feel like it, is wrong to do to someone. Certainly it is wrong to do someone in the name of collaboration, or civilization, or to experience X thing that YOU deem is important. — schopenhauer1

You can argue about the existence of potential or possible persons, but this is what you’re referring to when you talk about a ‘future’ person (or the concept of a person regardless of time) - particularly in relation to ‘force’. A force cannot act against a future or past existence - only against their potential or possibility. That’s basic physics. A force acting in physics can only act on the values of what exists in time.

A force acting on an actual person existing in time can be against their physical existence or against their will. In the later case there must be a will (a faculty which determines and initiates action) operating in time that has some value for the force to act against.

A force acting on a potential person - someone who is not born yet, although there is currently awareness, connection and collaboration towards achieving that potential - is a moral issue of behaviour in time only against this potential: against the value of this awareness, connection and collaboration that goes into forming the concept of an actual person in the future.

But this is different again from a force acting on a possible person, which is where you are operating here. An act of force on a ‘possible person’ in time can only be against the possibility of a person existing in the future: this is the only existence in time here that has a value to be acted against. So those applying any ‘force’ against this ‘possible person’ would be you and @khaled.

So, yes - it could be deemed ‘wrong’ to use force, but if ‘force’ is an act against the value of what exists in time, then perhaps you’re the ones attempting to use force here.

1- An action that will harm someone at some point is wrong unless it alleviates more harm than it causes (significantly more if it's alleviated from oneself)
2- Having a child harms someone at some point and doesn't alleviate enough pain from the parents to justify the act (even though the action happens before the person harmed exists, that doesn't matter)
3- Having a child is wrong — khaled

Thank you for laying it out for me. My issue is with the ethical perspective, not with antinatalism, as such.

So I disagree with with your first premise, because there is no way of knowing for certain how much harm you may inadvertently cause with your action. So you could evaluate (by some subjective or arbitrary measure) that your harmful act to alleviate harm is less harmful than what you’re alleviating, but that just invites others who are harmed by your actions to commit harmful acts in an attempt to alleviate their own harm - which by your premise, they are entitled to do.

Your second premise makes no sense to me at all. The value you’re attributing to pain is a subjective measurement. You can’t say what is ‘enough pain’ for someone else, and you can’t declare objectively that the temporal aspect of an action ‘doesn’t matter’.

The original line was: WATCH ME *presses big red button*. Maybe I should've kept it that way. It is entirely possible though highly unlikely for humanity as a whole to end its own existence — khaled

It may be possible, but that doesn’t end existence as a whole.

I don't believe this. What I believe is we shouldn't procreate. That's an entirely different belief. That no one will exist is a side effect not a goal — khaled

And I agree with you that we shouldn’t procreate. What I don’t agree with is that the individual is more important than existence. That is what you walked into between myself and @“schopenhauer1”. I’m sorry if I assumed you supported his ethical perspective. That’s how it appeared.

I can agree with that. The problem is being put in a situation where you are forced to change things in the first place. Yes, I accept that is the reality, but there is a way of not creating it for others- procreation. So I think we agree in some respects. If you like the game of change and finding a way to improve prediction errors fine, but don't force it on others. Like I said, forcing others into a trial-and-error scenario because you like it, or you feel like it, is wrong to do to someone. Certainly it is wrong to do someone in the name of collaboration, or civilization, or to experience X thing that YOU deem is important. — schopenhauer1

The whole idea of ‘force’ is incongruous with increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. If you are upholding these as principles, then you cannot knowingly ‘force’ anything on anyone, and you cannot be knowingly ‘forced’ into a situation where you have no choices available. You might not like the choices available, or you might not be aware of them all yet, but the reality is that you always have choices, so nothing is ‘forced’. This doesn’t fit with the idea of individual autonomy, though - which you deem to be of utmost important. I can’t help that - you would need to recognise for yourself that individual autonomy is impossible to achieve in any situation, let alone without force or harm, and have the courage to then abandon it as a principle and adjust your conceptualisation. I certainly can’t ‘force’ anyone to do that.

It’s not that I deem collaboration to be important. It’s that I see increasing awareness, connection and collaboration to be the underlying impetus of existence. When we suffer, it is from ignorance, isolation or exclusion. The only way out of that suffering is to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. The feeling of freedom, independence and power that the illusion of ‘individual autonomy’ promises (but does not deliver) can only be achieved by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. It’s not about what is right or wrong. This is reality, as I understand it. We can ignore it, sure - but I have found that we will inevitably suffer or increase suffering in others from that ignorance, every time.

So it is impossible that you have just evaluated all of your experiences, thoughts, definitions of certainty and existence and proofs and everything else incorrectly and that you are just thinking things that don't represent anything?

btw I don't think you are thinking about nothing since I do trust in logic, but I just don't think we can absolutely prove anything. — Qmeri

I agree that we can’t absolutely prove anything - but I can be certain about some things. Not because of experiences, thoughts, definitions, etc, but despite the uncertainty of all of these. Even if I can trust nothing at all, I can trust that something exists, and that something is aware of existence.

My problem with this, besides the major lack of real evidence of an underlying Way is that it can simply be manipulated into anything. So, if I make a decision that makes me suffer, you can say, "Ah, schopenhauer1 was not conforming with the Way!". Or alternatively, you can say, "Ah, don't worry schopenhauer1, in the end it is all a part of the Way!". As you see both versions of this can be used, and it would not matter whether there was a Way or not, just something someone uses as a justification for why your action was "wrong" or why it wasn't "wrong". — schopenhauer1

I’m not suggesting there is a specific path we, or even you specifically, have to follow - if that’s what you mean by ‘the Way’. If you make a decision that makes you suffer, I might suggest that there is something about the situation you’re not aware of, or refusing to acknowledge. Suffering often refers to what is called ‘prediction error’. How we conceptualise the world allows us to make predictions about our interactions. When these conceptualisations don’t correspond to reality, we suffer from prediction error: pain, for instance, refers to an error in budgeting for required energy, attention or effort.

Also, back to my earlier problem with it, it is self-justifying, and very conservative. If you say, "Work might be tedious, but the struggle against work causes even more suffering", or something like that, then nothing changes. One just accepts everything as having to be that way. But it doesn't. We have choices and that is not an illusion. One choice we can make is preventing others from suffering. Thta is the choice of antinatalism. This is one amongst many ways of rebellion. To say, "Don't rebel at all" is to self-justify what is currently the way things are. — schopenhauer1

Well, everything changes, things don’t have to be a certain way and I agree that we have choices, so I’m not sure where these assumptions are coming from about my perspective. The first step to making a change is understanding our reality for what it IS, not just what it should be. This means accepting the pain or humiliation of our prediction error, and being aware of where our conceptualisation of the world may be mistaken. The next step is to be aware of potential for change, and have the courage and patience to connect and collaborate with that potential, effecting change without force or harm.

Again, this is an unjustified claim and is self-justifying. It is almost a naturalistic fallacy, if it were true. You assume reality is "collaborating". Even if this was the case (which you haven't really shown), why do humans have to choose to "collaborate" with it to continue life? They don't. The simple way to prove it is this: "I thus choose to not have a child". Look at that! I just went against the "collaboration" of the universe. Simple. — schopenhauer1

no, I don’t assume that reality is collaborating at all. In most situations, the rest of the universe is only capable of a very limited collaboration. And I think I’ve already said that humans don’t have to do anything. We have such an enormous and varied capacity for collaboration, and yet we’re not obliged to collaborate in any way. We certainly don’t have to procreate - but I think we’ve been over this ground.

If fallibility is accepted as a possibility, then even "something exists" is not absolutely necessarily true, since one could just be failing to understand what those words even mean. You can never prove that you have evaluated your proofs correctly. — Qmeri

What I have written here is my expression of what I can be certain of. That’s not to say the words are true. What those words mean for me is true. I could be using the words differently to how you might interpret them, sure. I’m certainly open to approaching a shared meaning using different words or even different forms of expression. But it still starts with an expression, and this is the one I offer in this discussion, FWIW. I’m fairly confident in its truth regardless of possible alternative meanings of each word, but I’m also happy to be proven wrong.

The way I see it, the first two absolute, fundamental truths are:

1. Something exists; which leads us to also be certain that
2. Something is aware of existence.

They could potentially be the same thing - depending on what it means to ‘exist’.

Existence cannot be nullified by what exists.
— Possibility

Uhhh yes it can? WATCH ME *jumps off building* — khaled

Individually, yes - and I’ve already acknowledged that. But existence cannot be nullified in itself. Why do you continue to exist, when you believe that no one should exist, and that demonstrating the truth of it is as simple as jumping off a building?

A person (a "one") cannot choose not to have existed. The choice has already been made. — khaled

No choice has been made. A person exists. You think they shouldn’t, and believe that someone is to blame for this. That’s it.

I don't think it's a valid argument then. You haven't shown why reaching the conclusion that we shouldn't exist automatically means that a premise is wrong — khaled

Yeah, I’m not good with logic arguments. I realise that this can be frustrating for you, if that’s what you’re used to. But my failure to structure an argument logically is a demonstration of my skill with the language of logic, not necessarily a demonstration of the validity of the argument. Feel free to structure it for me, and I’ll try to keep up.

The way I see it, you’re arguing for the negation of existence from a position which, in itself, disproves your premise.

Of course, I could agree with your premise that no individual should exist, and then argue that it doesn’t nullify existence, only individual existence. I could go with that.

I haven't referred to primacy of autonomy or individualism — khaled

So you don’t agree with this:

If one respects autonomy of the individual, then you would not violate non-aggression and harm of another individual. — schopenhauer1

rooting ethics in autonomy is the only thing that actually respects a person as an individual and not just using them for someone else's agenda. — schopenhauer1

If not, then I’m curious how you’d explain your statement: “anything that prioritises [existence] over the individual is just plain wrong”?

There is no such thing as "potential child" — khaled

Neither is there a thing called "possible child" — khaled

This doesn't actually harm anyone though as I'm sure you're aware since you put harm in quotation marks — khaled

The reason I put ‘harm’ in quotation marks is because the term refers to a subjective concept. ‘Harm’ is always relative to the perspective of the one being ‘harmed’. I’ve done this here because I see harm being done where you don’t.

What I’m referring to here is what happens when, as an antinatalist, you deny the value that a possible child would have for someone else. This is why people get upset with your framing of procreation as ‘immoral’. It argues that a possible individual (which is who you are arguing for) is valuable to its possible self, but cannot have value or significance in relation to anyone else - even though a possible individual can only have value in relation to what exists to even consider its possibility. You use the word ‘future’ as if that reifies the possible individual to the point where it is entitled to sufficient autonomy to evaluate its own possible existence. But instead you are assuming for someone else’s possible child - you’re anticipating its decision based on your own negative evaluation of their existence, which is flawed, and disregarding the value that possible child has for anyone else.

I agree that we should not procreate.
— Possibility

Why? I'm curious — khaled

My basic argument is laid out here.

This makes no sense. If you do action X, Y consequence is a future person, who will then be harmed. It is as if you lost the connection of cause and effect. A person does not have to exist for the the rule to be followed, because by not following the rule, someone will exist, and it will be violated. Also, look again at@khaled point about the genetic tinkering, etc. The action is clearly about something that will negatively affect a future person. — schopenhauer1

Refer to my answer to khaled above.

Again, you are just repeating that there is some agenda beyond the autonomous individual. People create other people, not "awareness, connection, and collaboration" or any other outside force. In fact, it is self-justifying, saying that people cannot make choices when that isn't true. — schopenhauer1

How do you think we make choices, and how do we allow others to make choices for us? I’m not referring to an outside force, but to the underlying process of cause and effect. People can and should make conscious choices, but autonomy is an illusion - every choice we make is either aware, connected and collaborating with reality, or it is ignorant, isolated and excluding.

Yes, you never really provided a justification for your perspective of the "real" game. It seems like a idealization of evolutionary principles and emergence. Just because the universe has awareness, connection, and collaboration doesn't mean that is an agenda of the universe. That jump there is the part you are not providing evidence for as far as I see. — schopenhauer1

Well, there’s a lot to this perspective that requires a paradigm shift, so I’m only dealing with specific challenges as they come up. I’m open to anyone pointing out evidence to the contrary, of course. I’ve been discussing my perspective with Brett on the ‘what is truth?’ and ‘Simplicity-Complexity’ threads recently, but they’re getting derailed.

Sometimes the jump is necessary - a hypothesis to be tested, if you will. I’ve been refining the theory for some time now against a number of alternative perspectives, so I’m not precious about any of it.