If you want to know whether they want to be set on fire, yes. If you don't know, then it's best not to act. But why that matters is because we're talking about a person who has preferences. You can not do this when the person does not exist. — Terrapin Station

You can talk about the general rule that no human past present or future would like to be set on fire. It is ludicrous to claim you cannot talk hypothetically about these things when we can and are.

Because they've expressed them. Sometimes formally: again, here's an example: — Terrapin Station

That is rarely the case as I pointed out that people don't know my wishes and I don't go round advertising them all the time. Their wishes could easily have change anyway.

For example say someone is young and asks to be resuscitated in a living will in case of an accident. However they have an accident and become paralyzed and are very unhappy and wish they had not being.

There are several suicides where it is shown the person had changed their mind and tried to get help. So I don't think you can be confident about the desires of an unconscious person.

The problem is no one can consent to being brought into life. It is completely non consensual and I do not see how you can justify putting someone in that position where they did not consent to their life or having you as a parent and are not supposed to complain. I do not see where the entitlement to do that comes from. Your assumption must be that no one regrets being born which is clearly not the case.

For an unconscious person, their preferences prior to being unconscious are what matter. — Terrapin Station

How do you know what there preferences were before?

Why don't possible preferences get considered?

Do you need to consider past preferences to decide that an unconscious person would not like to be set on fire? I have not stated all my preferences to everyone nor do I carry a list of all my preferences around with me in case of an accident. I find it implausible if you say you cannot imagine a future persons preferences or consent issues.

I do not think I am in a suitable position to be a parent. However I could claim my child does not exist so I am entitled become a parent because I cannot know until the child exist who they will feel about my parenting. However I think that it is wrong to gamble with someone else's life when there are good reasons not to.

Neither can an unconscious person.

The issue is whether the person being born is granting consent or not, correct? — Terrapin Station

This issue is that life is not consensual. If someone cannot consent to being born then they are here in a non consensual manner.

We need there to be a person capable of granting or withholding consent before consent is an issue. — Terrapin Station

This is not true. You can discuss issues of consent in general and in an abstract way and from the experiences of prior people.

If someone sticks there hand in a fire and says "That really hurt" you don't need to stick your hand in the fire before deciding not to do so.
The issue of consent already exists because people already exist and you can't plead ignorance of the issue and its ramifications.

If you intend to create a new person than it is inevitable that consent issues will arise.

An unconscious person cannot give consent and that does not grant us permission to do what we like with them. The fact there is a stage where consent is not possible is not a get out clause.

Almost everyone knows someone they think is, or would make, an unfit parent. I cannot imagine anyone endorsing that a paedophile would make a suitable parent or a junkie.
Religious folk and others have opposed gays parenting.

The fact that we can judge someone to be an unfit parent before they have children means that the child does not have to exist to make welfare assessments about potential children.

People just need to extend this criticism to themselves and not assume they are good parenting material.

I cannot remember what your objection was. I don't see how creating someone does not create consent problems.

After a person is created they are capable of withholding consent and having an opinion on their existence. You are unlikely to create someone who does not value consent so then you are infringing on them.

I think most parents have it easy because most people don't realise the lack of consent issues so they are not going to crticise their parents or they don't accept consent arguments.

For example there are lots of things I would not have accepted as a child if I was informed. I would have refused to go to school for one. But I believed someone had authority over me to force me to go to school. Also I would not have gone to church and ignored my parents on a lot of issues.

But I don't really understand what you're saying here:

People often use the phrase "our children" as if we have collective responsibility or are all endorsing the same thing. I see having a child as an endorsement of everything, everything you are exposing them to.
— Andrew4Handel — Benkei

If you live in a world of inequality that is the world you are exposing your child to.

So it does not make sense to me to say you oppose inequality yet expose a child to it and your child will then be either one of the privileged or underprivileged.

If I live in a house with a leaking roof I would want to get that fixed before creating a child so as not to expose them to it.I think if everyone tried to bring their child into a decent lifestyle the world would be more decent.

The problem is you think it's profound where it is only trivially true. For starters, it's a false analogy to compare nothing with an unconscious person. An unconscious person has a will but is incapable of expressing it, nothing doesn't have a will. It's not just incapable, it's that it doesn't have any. — Benkei

I don't see how you think the fact people did not consent to be born or assent to life and society is trivial?

This is not a trivial dynamic between parent and child or individual and society. People have a legitimate complaint if they do not like the life or the society they have been given. They are not partaking freely in life but under substantial coercion.

For example I had to got to church up to five times a week as a child and read the bible and pray every day. I was bullied in school but had no choice but to go to school. Because of my status as a child I did not have the power or resources to prevent this. Then people want to hold the individual responsible for his or her own fate after a process of disempowering and indoctrination.

........

The point about an unconscious person is that they can't consent and If you do not know the person you do not know what their wishes are. But this does not give you permission to do something to them. You can't justify taking someones car when they are asleep on the basis of the impossibility of them consenting in their sleep.
When no consent is available that never leads to the conclusion that you can make something happen to someone. Imagine a future persons consent is not like imagining a unicorn because a future person will have wishes and desires and will exist.

When you don't mistreat an unconscious person you are doing this because you are imagining their future wishes .

I think you are using the term inhibition in a prejudiced way.

I experienced religious indoctrination and those kind of inhibitions and political propaganda and cultural norms are not rational inhibitions.

I think if someone behaves in an undesirable way when they are uninhibited it does not mean it is not the real them. For instance people react differently to alcohol and so people will say it is magnifying their true character. But I don't think behaviour under alcohol and drugs is uninhibited in a true sense. I think the behaviour is more likely to be influenced by the substance.

I think what people might want is authenticity where someone is not under undue influences. The problem might be however that there is no authentic personal and that we just build our identity from social influences.

One area where societies have become less inhibited is in terms of sex. I think sexual repression is not healthy and sexual liberation within civilized boundaries is more authentic.

Pointing out a lack of consent does not entail an expectation of consent. But once someone starts to exists they can exhibit a will. Just like you can imagine the wishes of an unconscious person you can imagine your future child's ability to consent and have contrary desires to yours..

You cannot claim someone consented to being created or signed some kind of contract with life. The child exists based on the parents desires (including sexual desires).

With other organisms hypothetical consent isn't even possible they appear not to have the conceptual apparatus (which is why a lot of people do not consider them part of the moral universe).

People already choose not to have children based on their belief they would be an unfit parent or that the child would inherit a faulty body or environment.

The only reason we are aware of some kind of reality is because of personal consciousness and I think that or some other kind of consciousness is where meaning lies. Our belief in a vast universe and vast history is still just a product of the mind. I am quite solipsistic in this sense.

The problem I see is in the lack of continuity. We can imagine life continuing without us but we won't know that. So we may be having false aspirations.

People have said of Christians "If you believe there is a paradise in the after life why don't you kill yourself? What is the point of now?"

I sympathize with this sentiment. I am contradicting what I said earlier to some extent. If there is an eternal life what is the point of this excursion?

Some people will then say this is a journey and a lesson. I hope that is the case.

I think life is made more pointless if you are suffering and can't avoid suffering and don't have second chance.

Our time in this inevitable but temporary life is brief, so what is there to do, but to enjoy it while it lasts. — Michael Ossipoff

I am not convinced by the inevitability argument.

The problem is that is is not always on our power to enjoy life. I think the optimistic position that everyone could enjoy life is part of the Just World fallacy.

I just found it difficult to embrace something so unjust. It seems better to be a psychopath narcissist where one might only be concerned with ones own desires.

I think consent is one of the biggest problem.
— Andrew4Handel

Something that doesn't exist doesn't have a will. How do you suggest this works? — Benkei

For an antinatalist the lack of consent involved in creating a child is a deterrent from doing this.

But even if you are not antinatalist acknowledging the lack of consenting raises ethical issues which puts the onus of responsibilities on parents.

You have to be really quite confident as a parent to think your child will benefit from having you as a parent and being in this world. It is easy to imagine a hypothetical better world.

I think creating a new person gives you different responsibilities for, not just to your child, but society compared to the childless.

People often use the phrase "our children" as if we have collective responsibility or are all endorsing the same thing. I see having a child as an endorsement of everything, everything you are exposing them to.

It seems far from obvious to me that things take place within any concepts at all. It seems to me that things take place in the world. — unenlightened

Concepts are in the mind and motivate or guide our action the world.

For example I remember (the past) That there is no milk in my fridge. I plan for the future to buy some milk. Recognizing a person means you have seen them before. Never recognizing someone would be the equivalent of living in the now.

You come out with these things as though they are evidently true. It's not true. things are valued at the time; memories are valued at a later time. — unenlightened

But an experience takes place over an amount of time even if it is a short amount of time.

It seems obvious to me that things take place within the concepts of past present and future. The problem is that death doesn't have any of these. Society is based on innovations from the past and plans for it's future. (Unless you have another idea of this)

I am not talking about value here but point and meaning because I agree you can temporarily value something. But people are making plans for a future they won't be in. Like I mentioned with the world wars example people in the past had no idea what trajectory the future without them would take.

I feel a lot hinges on whether there is a personal afterlife as to whether ones life was meaningful because I think there is no meaning, point or value without sentience. People often use the example of general anesthetics. That state of complete unawareness is suggested to be what death is like. ( partly because of the lack of dreams, or memory or experience of passage of time I imagine)

I don't think that death is a relief from suffering either, because after your dead it seems you have no awareness that you are no longer suffering. There is no one to be relieved from suffering. I don't know how to put a positive spin on death or build life around it. trying not to die is a big motivation I suppose.

I think there are numerous ethical problems with having a child that make it ethically indefensible. I think consent is one of the biggest problem. Suffering is made a bigger problem because of the lack of consent. You are asking someone to tolerate something they didn't choose.

I think there are problems with creating a society based on this fundamental lack of consent and having ethical expectations of other people.

I don't think you can dismiss peoples individual experiences because society is only made up of individuals. I think people will dismiss some experiences and embrace others like their own.

You don't have to be an antinatalist to be dissatisfied with life, society and peoples ideas and values. The response to the Indian man suing his parents in general shows how irrational and unreflective peoples attitude towards having children is.

It was worthwhile seeing the film then. — unenlightened

Things are usually valued over time. I would not like to have continuous bouts of amnesia so that large chunks of my life were missing from my memory. Ironically it is the worst memories we would like eradicated but their badness can make them more persistent.

That it isn't eternity that makes life meaningful is proven by the fact that people commit suicide. — TheMadFool

Some people who commit suicide believe in the afterlife and say they want to die to be reunited with a dead relative or friend. I think suicide is usually done to end suffering not necessarily with the desire to extinguish the self.

I am small and the universe is large; I am brief and the universe is long-enduring. That there are times and places I wot not of, does not render my life pointless. I have made a point, I don't have to make all points. — unenlightened

The pointlessness occurs after life.

As an analogy imagine going to the cinema and seeing a thrilling film whilst feasting and buttery popcorn and icy Cola. Then 5 minutes after you leave the film you have complete amnesia. Was it worthwhile seeing the film now it has been eradicated from your memory.

I think the value of life is based on memories and hopes not just on the moment. Part of the fun of Christmas is the anticipation and long build up.

I think people cannot imagine or either do not imagine that they will not be around after death to see what is happening or have any input. (barring and afterlife/reincarnation scenario). For me ceasing to exist entirely is probably the biggest fear of death. I think the "benefit" of religion has been motivation and hope. Terrible events seem slightly less bad with an afterlife hope.

It is still a beautiful thing if I do not see it or if no one sees it, — unenlightened

This is controversial. The beauty of a perception is subjective.

People do not agree on what is beautiful. But nevertheless the characteristics of a perception such as color are influenced by the individual visual system and not necessarily inherent in an object.

My post about the fact I did not consent to my experiences is supposed to illustrate from a first person perspective what is being to someone after they have been created on the whim of their parents.

It is not an abstraction but a real lived experience. People love stoicism in suffering because it means people don't have to be infringed on by other peoples suffering or reflect on the true nature of life.

The arguments are skewed when the genuine opposition are silenced or belittled.

Anyhow the lack of consent has real and wide ramifications. Humans are the only species that can reflect on life like this and on issues like consent, ethical issues and the nature of existence.

If I had the energy and didn't suffer from fatigue I would be at war for my stance, It is not a tantrum.

I think one of the top three philosophical questions is "Why did you have children". All the other philosophical questions exist only when you make someone start to exist.

Life is a tyranny of the majority and majority are not the most exceptional, intelligent people.

The only questions that need asking are to parents/reproducers who keep perpetuating this. You don't ask an abuse victim how they managed to get abused.

I am still alive. A lot of people have died through victimization (War/famine/genocide etc). I am therefore not voiceless. It appears like you and others want silent victims who don't infringe on your comforts with protest over their experiences and opinions on life.

I think if someone is going to be forced into existence without consent the world would need to be a much better place with a much brighter history.

I don't feel there aren't any decent grounds for encouraging me to be stoical about the situation either. — Andrew4Handel

Try being strong instead of whiny and weak. — DingoJones

I don't consider myself weak for pointing out the wrongness of the situation. I consider conformists, the apathetic and people who abandon arguments weak.

I think stoicism in that face of blatant illogical and injustice is weak minded

You're the one talking about submission to traffic light rules, you're going to ignore the pragmatic aspect? — Judaka

You said:

I definitely don't think obedience entails submission — Judaka

I was responding to this claim. I pointed out that Submission is in the etymology of the word obedience.

Obedience is not just submission but I was pointing out that it does involve submitting. The problem is submitting unquestioningly and without pragmatism. Even with traffic rules you don't have to submit but it is in your interest to abide by them.

I do not think following rules and obedience are the same thing because following rules can be pragmatic or necessary. Obedience however is obedience to someone or to someones values.
I am not claiming no one should ever follow rules but that they should not act without out thinking for themselves and evaluating ideas. I also think anyone is entitled to go against any order that has bee set up. I do not believe anyone has the kind of authority that should force people to obey them.

In history most people with authority have had unjustified authority based on class, race and gender hierarchies this was partially due to force but partly due to obedience.

I think irrationality is a bigger problem than life.

Rationality might lead to antinatalism however we have not even got to the stage where logic and rationality dominate discourse.

I don't know if your overall perspective is influenced by a lack of belief in an afterlife.

I think human suffering could be reduced in different ways without total antinatalism and that would be better than the current situation.

No, you are not submitting. That's like saying if I play chess and follow the rules, then I am submitting to them. It's actually a really dumb way to think. There are many reasons why people follow traffic rules and most of them are pragmatic. — Judaka

We are discussing obedience not pragmatism. Pragmatism is not obedience and examples you have been giving are pragmatic or self interested rule following.

Same for most of the rules you've laid out except for following dictatorships which is an unfair example — Judaka

I don't feel you have a realistic grasp of history. It is not just dictatorships that enforce rigid but unjustified rules. Slavery and racism was enforced. Sexism and lack of equal opportunity was forced. Religious observance and social norms have been forced. The possibility for most adults to vote has been a modern phenomenon.

However obedience now has taken the form of an attitude with people not questioning norms sufficiently.

give me an example where one person doesn't act on obedience and is solely driven by passion and his own agency. — Rhasta1

There are numerous examples.

Richard Proenneke lived alone In Alaska for nearly thirty years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke Anyone else who lived or lives as a hermit counts as an example.

But any action you are not immediately forced to do by others counts.

The idea we are constantly forced or obliged to do things is a damaging myth. It is not an issue of free will but rather an issue of seeing what genuine options there are. Fatalism towards authority is disguising available options.

Obedience will be a very careful, rational response. — Bitter Crank

I don't know if following governmental rules is obedience. It could be resignation. I think complying with regulations can be rational, pragmatic and self interested. I think if one follows a rule because it is in ones own interest that is not quite obedience.

Think following rules is to some extent inevitable for survival but it is forced on us. But to some extent there is a democratic agreement here we agree to follow rules if the government does X for us.

I am concerned with the attitude as opposed to the action.

The etymology of obedience is "submission to a higher power or authority," from Old French obedience "obedience, submission"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/obedience

What examples can you give where obedience is treated as morally praiseworthy? — Judaka

Obedience to parents. Obedience to School teachers. Obedience to the Police. Obedience to legislation. In any dictatorship or theocracy obedience is seen as praiseworthy.

If I obey the traffic lights on a road then I am submitting. If ignore a red light and cross when I feel like it I am not submitting. Unless they are trained by humans, pets will do what they feel like. Humans are unique for the vast array of rules they submit to.

If you want to object to a rule you probably have to go to court and have a long court case to try and get a rule change. Life involves a lot of submitting and compliance without people even considering it.

I was talking about people willingly acting in compliance with a competent individual's recommendations unquestioningly. — Judaka

I am referring to obedience as submission. I think obedience entails submission.

I believe what you are talking about is choosing to accept someones recommendations that choice is made based on the belief that they are an expert and that belief is based on something else such as the persons success in the field they claim to be an authority in.

And you yourself have used the word "recommendation" not command.

I am personally talking about the phenomena of obedience as an attitude and something that is seen as morally praiseworthy. I think asking questions and not immediately submitting is almost always the preferable thing.

I am thinking of large scale events such as the wars that humans have been involved in and unjust political structures that oppress large sections of a population. Political apathy and so on. Children obeying parents when the parents have not justified their authority. Forms of authority not earned by reason.

I don't think anyone can justify submitting to politics or society. Because I do not think they have a valid authority to control a person. In comparison people are allowed to refuse medical treatment even if the person offering it was someone who had never lost a patient and was a world renowned expert.

I view rationality as a process not a set of axioms or beliefs. I don't think rationality leads to certainty.

No man can escape responsibility for his actions because his actions were ordered. — tim wood

Do you mean responsibility in this life or the next?

I think people do use obedience to negate personal responsibility.

On the other hand, a hierarchy of positions of authority can lead to more efficient workforce, or military force. — Harry Hindu

I think before you create a sophisticated society like this a lot of justification is needed. Otherwise you have what is like a headless bureaucracy disempowering the individual.

Some people might support a monarchy with an arbitrary head of state so that no group or structure can dominate power. Just because it is more straightforward and something you can latch on to and religion might have the same role.

I think it is best to teach critical thinking and limit any organisations power to empower the individual. It is a difficult balance. But nevertheless overall I think obedience has been terrible for humanity.

There is a difference between someone being an authority on a subject and having authority. Anyone can be given authority with no expertise and I think people are conflating the two here.

Obedience does not imply someone has authoritative knowledge it just implies they have power.

Even if you are not an expert on a subject you can still reason about it to some extent if a demand is being made on you. The alternative is an authoritarian regime that does not allow people to assume they have adequate reasoning power.

Rationality means nothing outside of a system of valuation. So 'ought' orients and organizes the meaning of any system of facts by requiring facts to be interpreted according to a scheme or paradigm — Joshs

I think reason and rationality are only values if you tell other people that they ought to be reasonable or rational.

Facts, logic, reason and rationality have proved themselves as methods to find out facts, negotiate reality and do science et al.

I just finished my "masterpiece", which is exactly like that, a "The Matrix"-like work of fiction, and I'm feeling pretty happy and proud of my achievement. — Adur Alkain

Well done!!