It just seems to me that if everyone did what you are suggesting then humanity will go extinct in short order. — punos

Yes. If people decide not to procreate, then the species will go extinct. Do you think people do not have the right to make that decision? If every woman in the world decided they did not want to procreate, are you in favour of raping some of them? No, right? Why? Becasue that would be unjust. See? It's more important to respect others and not to create injustices than it is to continue the species.

Plus, we're a terrible presence on the planet. It's only humans who think humans are great. And dogs, perhaps, but they're idiots.

Do you think anyone deserves to live? — punos

Yes. Innocent people deserve happy harm-free lives. Are you not listening? So innocent people do not deserve to die. They will die, of course. But they do not deserve to die. They deserve a happy harm free life, like I said. That's why one should not create them! They'll come to harm and die. They won't get the lives they deserve. They deserve happy harm free lives.

Do you regret being born? — punos

No. What's that got to do with anything? Imagine I am the product of rape. Well, I don't regret being here. Does that mean it was ok for the man to rape my mother? No, obviously not. That one does not regret a situation is not evidence that the act that created it was moral.

Reason is not strong with this one. If nobody deserves anything (an incredibly silly assertion), then nobody deserves to come to harm. Therefore newly born babies do not deserve to come to harm. So, you've made an outrageously silly claim - that no one deserves anything - to no avail. That's really not very rational, is it?

If all As do not deserve to come to harm, and all Bs are As, then all Bs do not deserve to come to harm.
Now imagine an emoticon that whose tongue is forced beneath its lower lip and that is making a 'durrr' sound.

What are you going to do next - deny anything exists? Bartricks has made an argument - but his argument doesn't work because nothing exists. There. Pow!

Innocence does not always equal innocence. — spirit-salamander

Yes it does.

There is the more metaphorical innocence of the animal, and there is the moral innocence of a person. — spirit-salamander

Animals are innocent too. But why bring animals into the equation? Regardless of the status of animals, my argument is that those whom humans create by their procreative acts are innocent. And that's true. Or at least, it is what we are obliged to believe. There is a presumption of innocence: a person is innocent until we have evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, your argument begs the question regarding optimism and pessimism. An absolute optimism states that to be is always better than not to be, so that it is even better to be in hell than not to be at all. — spirit-salamander

It's not question begging. A question begging argument is an argument that has a premise that asserts the conclusion. My argument does not do that.

Premise 1: if a person deserves no harm yet will come to harm, that is an injustice
Premise 2: procreative acts create a person who deserves no harm, but will come to harm
Conclusion: Procreative acts create an injustice
Premise 3: Other things being equal, one ought not perform acts that create injustices
Conclusion: Other things being equal, one ought not perform procreative acts

That's not question begging. Note, to challenge my argument the 'optimist' would need to argue that it is reasonable to believe that the life a procreative act creates will contain no harm whatsoever. And that's absurd, of course.

I would not agree to not create them just because they might suffer at some point or other like everyone else does. — punos

That's not the claim. They don't deserve to suffer. They will though. So it's wrong to create a situation like that - voluntarily to create a situation in which someone will receive something they do not deserve.

What justification do you have for doing that? That it was done to you? So, if you were raped, you can justify raping someone? Clearly that doesn't work.

That you're giving people a choice? No you're not. What choice? You will have created a person who does not deserve to come to harm and they will come to harm. They didn't choose any of that.

So what you're saying makes no sense. Procreating creates an innocent person. And an innocent person deserves a harm-free happy life. That's not something you can give them. So you've done wrong - a great wrong - if you create that person.

i can't discern a coherent criticism in what you wrote.

So you agree that newly born babies do not deserve to come to harm and you agree that they will come to harm.

So you agree, do you, that we ought not to create them then? Or at least that there is a desert-based case for drawing that conclusion?

If you think procreation is moral, then you need to provide countervailing moral positives that could justify the creation of an unnecessary injustice.

It's not ironic. I argue things. Most others don't. When I point out that others are not arguing anything or engaging with anything I have argued, that is not ironic. Unless you're Alanis Morrisette.

If nobody deserves anything, then nobody deserves to come to harm, do they?

Think it through.

So it seems you do think that babies do not deserve to come to harm.

So which premise do you dispute?

No, not personally, but i also think it's a necessary "evil" because my moral stance you could say is that evolution is what's important not our personal feelings. — punos

And do you agree that a newly born baby will experience some harm?

Why's that ironic? Are you Alanis Morrissette?

I made an argument in the OP. Which premise do you dispute?

Do you think that a newly born baby deserves to come to harm?

So you find following an argument painful. No doubt that's why you don't do it.

No you didn't. Be clear. Do you think newly born babies deserve to come to harm?

Which premise are you denying?

I am not against antinatalism. From a practical POV, it would help our environmental problems a great deal if far fewer people had been born in decades past. — Bitter Crank

That wasn't my argument. Focus on my argument, not any old argument that has vaguely antinatalist implications.

But arguing the merits of antinatalism is a bit like arguing the merits of homosexuality — Bitter Crank

No it isn't. I am arguing that it is wrong to procreate because procreation creates a huge injustice: it creates a person who deserves more than this world can provide. That's not remotely like arguing the merits of homosexuality.

One IS a homosexual or one is not. Logic has nothing to do with it. One IS an antinatalist or one is not. I do not believe people embrace antinatalism because of compelling argument. They embrace antinatalism because of compelling experience. — Bitter Crank

What total and utter nonsense. I am an antinatalist because I'm very rational and the arguments for it stack up. Just because you believe whatever the hell you want and couldn't care less what the evidence indicates if it indicates something you don't already believe, don't tar the rest of us with your brush of self-indulgence.

Now, cod psychology aside, which premise in my argument do you disagree with?

Do you think newly born babies deserve to come to harm?

I think you're confusing the notion of legal innocence - of not having committed a crime - with an existential question - what is the cause of the suffering and harm that all humans are susceptible to. — Wayfarer

No I am not. The legal notion presupposes the moral notion. If you haven't done anything of your own free will, then you do not deserve to come to harm.

There is only one way you can come to deserve to come to harm: you have to have freely done or become something.

You don't have to have done anything to deserve respect, good will, and a happy life. And you don't have to have done anything to deserve not to come to harm.

You only have to have done something in order to deserve to come to harm.

These are not legal claims. These are moral claims.

And a person who has just been created has obviously not done anything. And so they do not deserve to come to any harm. They deserve respect, good will, and happiness and no harm whatsoever.

if - if - they develop reason-responsive free will, then they may, depending on how they use it, come later to deserve harm.

But that's not what procreative acts create: they create an innocent person and an innocent person deserves no harm at all and a happy life. Which is not what this world provides. Thus, it is an injustice to create such a person.

Accepting for the sake of argument that innocents do not deserve to come to harm, it does not follow that they deserve to be harm free either. — Janus

Yes it does. The only exception is harm an innocent person freely decides to visit on themselves. Harm that an innocent has done to themselves (and done of their own free will) is harm that is neither deserved nor undeserved.

But all other harms are undeserved and, as such, the innocent person deserves not to suffer them.

There are numerous arguments that imply the antinatalist conclusion. This one is distinct from the consent argument though. One is guilty of using another person when one does not get their prior consent to their participation in your project. And so I agree that parents are guilty of treating another as a mere means when they procreate. And that's sufficient, probably, to show such acts to be wrong.
But that argument applies even if one's act will confer on the one who is created a harm free life of happiness. That is, one can be guilty of using anotehr even if one does not deprive them of anything they deserve.
So this desert-based argument is different. It supplements the consent argument, but is distinct from it.

According to this desert-based argument, innocent persons deserve more than this world can offer. They deserve to have an entirely harm-free life, for an innocent person deserves no harm at all. Clearly the world does not offer that, and thus those who procreate are doing a great wrong: they are creating an injustice. Furthermore - and I don't need this additional claim, though I think it is true - an innocent person deserves a positively happy life. And this too is not something this world can offer.

Typically those who procreate think they have done their offspring a huge favour. This is a big mistake. They have created a huge debt that they can't possibly discharge.

What dichotomy? Here are my claims and you tell me which one is bizarre. Don't make up stuff and attribute it to me just because it makes sense to you. Address what I said.

We are born innocent.

Is that a bizarre claim? Or, you know, the reasonable default view? Well, Isaac?

An innocent person does not deserve to come to harm.

Is that a bizarre claim? Or is it, you know, a conceptual truth that only someone who didn't understand what the word 'innocent' meant would dispute?

An innocent person positively deserves a happy life. Now, is that bizarre? Do you think they deserve nothing? Don't alter the claim - don't confuse it with the claim that others owe them a happy life. That's a different claim. Address what I actually said: do you think it is bizarre to think that innocent people default deserve to be happy?

Do they deserve respect, for instance? Or, in your oh so sensible view, do innocent persons deserve nothing?

SO you think babies deserve to suffer?

Clarify whether you think babies are innocent? Yes or no?

It's yes, right? And that means they do not deserve to suffer.

You are simply declaring that a procreated person is "innocent"; — Bitter Crank

And you are just declaring that.

One does not need to be a Christian (or of any religion) to recognize the possibility that a procreated person may be capable of great wrong-doing, even if they do not actually wreak havoc. — Bitter Crank

You are just declaring that.

This hinges on your definition of innocence (which is a kind of religious concept, as well as a legal concept). "No harm whatsoever" is a sweeping generalization. — Bitter Crank

You are just declaring that.

There is no outside agent that defines innocence, or what a person--innocent or otherwise--deserves. There is no agency that guarantees a happy life to anyone. All of which makes your new approach unsuccessful. — Bitter Crank

You are just declaring that.

The world is, in fact, a fairly harsh arrangement which guarantees a certain amount of pretty rough experience (for all creatures, great and small), while at the same time allowing for a measure of delight. Antinatalism comes down to one preferring to not have children for various reasons, from personal inconvenience (children are inconvenient) to an imbalance of suffering and delight -- like the universe had ever suggested one would get a a fair share. — Bitter Crank

You are just declaring that.

Logic can't solve the problem. — Bitter Crank

Another declaration.

See? Tedious isn't it. Now argue something.

It's just what it is to be innocent. Bachelors do not have wives. Why? That's just what a bachelor is - a wifeless man. And an innocent person 'just is' a person who does not positively deserve to come to harm.

Did Mr Chesterton have any views on whether one can use moldy lemons to make a lemon meringue pie? I mean, I want to get something useful out of this exchange.

Your car is broken and so you're going to have a kid? What?

They don't deserve harm but rather need "harm" (trials) to grow — Gregory

Do try and focus on the question. The question was whether an innocent person deserves to come to harm. And the answer is 'no'.

No, the answer is just 'no'.

It's a conceptual truth. Innocent people do not deserve to come to harm. If they did, then they wouldn't be 'innocent'. To be innocent 'just is' not to deserve to come to harm.

So, the answer is 'no', Gregory. The question was analogous to this one: do bachelors have wives? The answer to that one is 'no' because it is a conceptual truth that bachelors lack wives.

So, either revise your earlier answer and say that babies are born guilty, or accept that babies are born innocent and thus deserve no harm whatsoever.

A baby is not guilty — Gregory

That's the only bit that's relevant in your reply.

Now, moving on, does an innocent person deserve to come to harm?

Can I still use them to make a lemon meringue pie? I wonder.

Look, which premise do you dispute? Shall we go through them? Do you think a newly born baby is guilty of something?

Your OP isn't complicated — Gregory

My lemons are moldy.

Are you going to address the argument or are we just going to exchange mindless observations?

The argument won't work with a Christian for example — Gregory

You clearly don't know how arguments work.

Argument, not arguer. Do try and learn. Argument. Address it.

And yes, the argument establishes that I am entitled to an entirely harm free happy life (whether I feel it or not). Address that argument. See if you can. Or - and this is what you'll actually do - make a witless comment and follow it with a crying with laughter face.

Why did you post that? Are you just bored?
Now, Isaac, which premise is bizarre?
You think we're born guilty? You genuinely think that of these two claims: a) we are born guilty and b) we are born innocent, it is 'b' that is the bizarre one? You actually think that, do you?

Or do you think it is bizarre to think that an innocent person does not deserve to come to harm? Is that the one that you think is bizarre? You think of these two claims a) innocent people do not deserve to come to harm and b) innocent people do deserve to come to harm, it is 'a' that is the bizarre one?

Some tasks for you. First, try and become reasonable (this will be the hardest of the tasks I am setting you). Second, try and be clear. Don't make me do the work of trying to figure out what the hell you're on about. Third: engage with the argument and not the arguer.

Which premise do you dispute?

So you think no one deserves anything. Good one.

No. That's a Christian doctrine and I'm not a Christian.

Argument, not arguer.

Which premise do you dispute?

Yes you were. It is my thread and you wrote on it. Thus you were trying to say something relevant to the OP. You failed. Go away and learn to focus on what someone has said and resist blurting whatever inane thoughts arise in your mind at any given time.

That does not engage with the argument I just presented. Focus!

You seem to be attacking a straw man version of idealism.

Berkeley is the most famous and best idealist. And he argued that the external world that our sensations give us some awareness of must itself be made of sensations. He got to this conclusion in the following way. First, he noted that our sensations can only be said to be giving us some awareness of an external world if they in some way resemble it. If our sensations in no way resemble the world they're supposed to be telling us about, how do they give us any awareness of it?

Next, he held that it was self-evident to reason that a sensation can only resemble another sensation. Sounds are like sounds, smells like smells, textures like textures and so on.

From this it follows that the world our sensations give us some awareness of must itself be made of sensations, for it is only such a place that they could possibly tell us about.

Next he held that it was also self-evident that sensations are essentially sensed. That is, they cannot exist unsensed.

Next, sensations are always and everywhere sensed by a mind of some kind. For any sensation, there is a sensor, and the sensor is a mind.

Thus the sensations constitutive of the external world are being sensed and by a mind, for only a mind can sense things.

And as the external world is unified - there's 'the' sensible world - the external sensible world is the sensational activity of a single mind. Not yours or mine, but another.

It is noteworthy that many contemporary critics of Berkeley's idealism also attack straw man versions of it. For instance, many critics seem to think that Berkeley was arguing that the sensible world exists in 'our' minds. That was not his view. The external world is every bit as external on his view as it is on a materialist view. It is not its location that he is disputing, but its composition.

Here's an argument for free will:

1. We are morally responsible for our choices
2. If we are morally responsible for our choices, then we have free will
3. Therefore we have free will

In my experience, those who deny we have free will can quickly be shown to be reasoning badly. This is because it is far more self-evident that we have free will, than that free will requires something we do not have.

Many, of example, think that free will is incompatible with determinism. But it's more self-evident that we have free will than that free will requires the falsity of determinism. So only a fool would conclude that we lack free will on the grounds that determinism is true. For if determinism really is true, it would be more rational to conclude that determinism is compatible with free will than that free will does not exist.

So, a fool reasons like this:

1. Determinism is true
2. Determinism is incompatible with free will
3. Therefore we lack free will

A clever person reasons like this:

1. Determinism is true
2. We have free will
3. Therefore, determinism is true and we have free will

Is A a proposition or a state of affairs?

You have to say it is a proposition.

But if there are no truths then there are no true propositions.

It can be the case that there are no truths. But in that scenario there will be no true propositions.

Is it possible for there to be no propositions? Yes. A proposition is a kind of thought and if there are no minds there are no propositions. And clearly it is possible for there to be no minds . Thus it is possible - metaphysically possible - for there to be no propositions. And if there are no propositions then there are no truths (truth being a property of propositions).

Thus it is metaphysically possible for there to be no truths.