I thought some time whether I had something to say about this subject and realised I couldn't really think of anything.

Being a person: not worrying about the answer to this OP.. .?

Thanks, I agree with basically everything you wrote.

The limitations of morality are stretched by $10,000, lmao, $100m, really? Do we all live in the same world or not? Is it even commendable to sacrifice such an opportunity of $100m just to save a stranger? Other than the fear of hell, does any other justification make sense? — Judaka

I don't know. I live comfortably money wise. More money isn't very meaningful to me and I think that will play a very big role in people's decisions as well. Another factor is probably how many people will be aware of your choice and who. My kids' and my wife's opinions matter and they would want me to make the moral choice. So fear of the wife instead of hell probably.

What I'm saying is that money is easily transferable between hands, it's a singular value that is always present in life. The opportunity to part with money to help others always exists. The same can't be said for trying to save a drowning person, it's a rare circumstance, with an unknown value, an unknown risk, really, nothing is known at all, it's just overcomplicated. — Judaka

How is money less complex here? What is my dollar spent on? The coffee machine? The coffee? Actual instruction? Which instruction? What instruction is most effective in preventing deaths? etc. etc.

Lol, it depends on the circumstances, sure. If someone watches a kid drowning in a pool and does nothing to help and you want to call it murder, fair enough. If someone doesn't rush into a potentially dangerous situation to save a drowning person, that's fair, I don't think they're a murderer for not taking on that risk. I shouldn't have even said anything, the more I think about your drowning example, the more obvious it is that it's incredibly insufficient. — Judaka

It always does depend on circumstances. Nobody is required to put themselves in harm's way, that usually excuses a person from doing what other people can do without risk.

I'm not sure in what sense it's insufficient. What do you mean? I'm trying to explain why I think there's a moral difference between contributing by giving cash, where there's no causal link between the cash given and a life saved but there is where I'm confronted with a situation where my actions can prevent a death and where failing to do so would be morally condemnable. My failing to give cash doesn't cause a death and is therefore not morally condemnable, my failing to intervene when someone's drowning does. Giving to charity is commendable but saving a person is morally obligatory in my view. I realise that view doesn't necessarily have to be shared by others but I do think it's consistent.

what makes OP easier is that we're talking about money, money used to save someone's life, the saving is guaranteed. — Judaka

That's not in the OP though; you just choose the cash and a lot of people are claiming to use the money to save other lives but this isn't a requirement in this experiment. I would agree though that if the option was 100 million that is guaranteed to be spent on saving other people's lives, I would go for the money assuming I would have enough time to deliberate on the decision.

Though, I do not agree that you're the cause of death by choosing not to intervene. — Judaka

Why not? If but for your intervention the person would die, then choosing not to act is murder in my book. How is this different from a doctor refusing treatment? His refusal doesn't cause the patient to die? Or do you think their duty to treat people only stems from the Hypocratic oath? Or me failing to brake means I'm not to blame for the car accident? How does this work exactly?

Your answer surprises me. If I jump in the water to save someone, my saving him is a conditio sine quo non for the person not drowning. My not giving money to lifeguards cannot be appropriately identified as costing lives. I'm at that point not contributing but I'm also not causing a death by not giving money. In the drowning example I'm the cause of death by choosing not to intervene. Seems a big difference to me.

Except, you already live a life where you DON'T give up your time and wealth to help people YOU COULD HAVE helped. We all already prioritise our goals and dreams, our holidays, the nice things we can afford over the potential for those resources to be used in helping someone we could have helped. — Judaka

Is this really comparable though? There's a different level of agency where I'll jump in the water to save someone but I don't donate to lifeguard training.

which countries embrace this type of monitoring? As I said, you need strong and effective government to protect rights. The right laws, rule of law, politically engaged citizenry etc. It's a cooperative effort to ensure governments don't devolve into tyranny. Democracy is never done, there's no end of history. Individualists are just parasites of the social goods society have provided them and their forefathers fought for.

What I always find funny about individualists and their freedoms is how they basically whine about rights that haven't really existed for the majority of western people since the 1900s. By every conceivable standard, there's more choice and more freedom today than in the past with some fluctuations here and there. There's also more choice and freedom in western social democracies than the Anglo Saxon affair often touted as an example of individualism.

Personal rights are protected by strong and effective governments. In other words, small governments and maximized freedom are mutually exclusive.

These inane platitudes aren't an argument. A baby isn't free anymore than a tortoise on its back. On the other hand, if that's the freedom you value, this can be easily arranged. We'll give you debilitating drugs causing you to lose speech and control of your motor functions. Enjoy your freedom.

Man is born free and without responsibility. Responsibility can only be a result of his own voluntary actions. Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed. — Tzeentch

Fucking bullshit fairy tale. Man is born as a wailing, incapacitated blob of fat entirely dependent on other people to take care of it.

The word game here is where you dismiss logic as a word game. The rest of your post just repeats the same that has been previously demonstrated to be false.

so you're saying it's like masturbation?

In any case, this assumes the conclusion (begs the question) that having children is bad, which is the entire point of the discussion. No dice, just another fallacy.

Yes, which is morally irrelevant if nobody actually benefits and counterfactual in most modern societies.

There's a rather obvious difference between people that will exist and the clear contradiction of a non-existent future person. Personhood, after all, presupposes existence.

benefitting who? If that decision doesn't benefit anyone, it's not a moral choice.

I can consider him you numb skull, as I've repeatedly done and even provide examples for in the OP, I'm saying you cannot speak sensibly about such person when such a person doesn't exist. So when the decision not procreate is made, there's no future person who you saved from any harm. This is simply incoherent.

straw man as usual. Nothing has no properties, so no potentiality either but I'm perfectly capable of entertaining if this then that's.

No, you stupid cunt, there's no such thing as a non-existent future person.

Until you can explain how nothing cannot suffer, we're done. What you call absurdity is logical rigor, but because it doesn't answer your intuitions you dismiss it.

Yes, you have to exist to not suffer or suffer, because it's something people do.

How about you answer my question first? It should also clarify why euthanasia is different.

I am not a utilitarian, at least in that aggregate sense, so wouldn't matter for my argument. — schopenhauer1

Why bother with the asymmetry then? If there ever was a utilitarian argument... :chin:

In my point of view, it´s relevant to say it is better that there is a world without people suffering, than a world with people suffering in it. Or even that there is no world, no people, no suffering - and I concern this better than the world with people suffering in it. — Antinatalist

Yes, this fallacious intuition is shared by many. Unfortunately there's nothing logical about it. Better for whom?

[

Even if it is person-dependent, that someone will not be harmed is good. — schopenhauer1

You still don't get it do you? Who isn't harmed?

You keep replacing "conditions of" with "causes". Your choice to misquote all the time. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, same difference. Look up necessary and sufficient causes and then look up necessary and sufficient conditions. But sure, let's talk about "conditions", in which case I'm really not causing suffering by procreating, because we stopped talking about morality in its entirety. If I'm merely causing one of the conditions, which isn't a sufficient condition, then I'm not causing suffering either.

If I put a pan on the stove I'm not causing the water to boil. That still requires water, gas and fire.

Your sentence doesn't make sense to me in that I'm confused what you're trying to say. In your last post people are either suffering or they are not. People are doing something. If there are no people, it no longer makes sense to talk about suffering because that is something people do. In other words, "suffering" is a state, which presupposes the existence of living people.

I honestly believe hard antinatalist are thoroughly confused about metaphysics (attributing states and properties to nothing), causality (living is demonstrably no cause for suffering, any property of a person presupposes living but that doesn't mean my red hair is caused by living), a self-serving dismissal of human experience (plenty of modern societies where almost nobody is really miserable), self-serving dismissal of history (comfort and happiness have developed for the better) and a narrow view of human behaviour (hunger is suffering, but it leads to culinary experiences and quality time with friends and family).

I think there are very good reasons not to have kids in specific circumstances. I had to think long about it myself because of global warming, pollution, over fishing, corporate capitalism etc. but quite frankly I've managed to work myself to the side of the equation where I can insulate myself and my family from most of these issues if needed.

aha, the scenarios where we have pegasi on the one hand and unicorns on the other. If neither pertain to reality nothing about the argument is relevant.

You're funny (unintentionally?). — schopenhauer1

Oh yes, let's return to where you never proved living causes suffering (not a sufficient cause) and just kept repeating "but you have to live to suffer", which coincidentally reinforces my previous point that suffering presupposes living. Just like any property of a person really. God, this is so fucking tedious it isn't funny anymore. Just some idiots with a belief and forgetting about basic logic.

ABSURD. In order to avoid X, you must enter X so THAT it can be avoided. In order to avoid having someone else eaten by a lion, you should put them in situations where they can be eaten by the lion....Nope. — schopenhauer1

Nothing absurd about if you stop replacing meaningful terms with meaningless ones. There's no presupposition between X and second X, so of course, THAT results in an absurdity. But only because it's an obvious straw man.

but all instances of suffering occur from being put in a position where the conditions occur.. — schopenhauer1

This is just a rephrasing of "caused by" which I've thoroughly debunked ages ago. Not going again there. Existence doesn't cause suffering. And I don't need metaphors of a game to make my point. But if you want, you're not avoiding losses by not playing the game. Losing presupposes playing, so if you want to avoid a loss, you need to start playing first. Anything else is just nonsense.

Also note that the data for the Netherlands is a strong utilitarian argument to have as many babies as possible.

wrong. Read the OP.

That´s why I put the word "state" on quotation marks. — Antinatalist

As if that resolves the fact that it's meaningless.

And if someone finds themselves born into terrible circumstances (more than what you consider "normal" life) and the person knew they were going to birth this future person there..That potential person cannot be considered in any meaningful way? In an odd way Benkei, you are invoking some sort of "soul" theory of being.. Very Platonic and Christian of you. You as well Isaac. — schopenhauer1

That's neither here nor there with the specific comment I was replying to. Read the OP, which already dealt with this shit.

Why don't you run me through the 50 steps you went through in your head to go from "you can't attribute states to nothing" to "you're invoking some sort of soul"? That's some serious bullshit right there.

Non-existence is of course "state", where is no he or she. — Antinatalist

This is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Nothing doesn't have properties or states. The ability for a thing to have a property presupposes that it exists.

Ha! Are they not already? (Everyone in the Netherlands is basically Marlon Brando to us repressed English stiffs, we think you're constantly at it. I've only known one Dutch person, the parent of a client - and she was apparently a sex therapist. Did little to undermine my prejudices I'm afraid!) — Isaac

That must have happened when I wasn't looking. :cry:

By the way, if we're going to be utilitarian about it. If I take the numbers from the Netherlands (2013 to 2017) then it looks like the following: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/27/one-in-five-dutch-adults-very-happy

If I attribute weighting by assuming a 1 = -5, 2 = -4 etc. and starting from 6 =+1 up to 10 = +5, I get a weighted happiness score of +264.7. If we have no people, the weighted happiness score is equal to 0 (people) times whatever score you want to apply to it, equals 0. Therefore Dutch people should be fucking like bunnies.

If, instead of being self-absorbed whingers (I'm referring to modern society here, not antinatalists specifically), we actually got out and helped each other, far fewer people would be in such pain. — Isaac

Hear hear. Especially during these fucking lock downs, we need to take extra care of each other.

To other posters; my interest in debating antinatalism really goes up and down. Just two days ago when we're debating a point and someone's rebuttal is based on issues discussed years ago (getting into the metaphysical problems of ascribing states to non-existent people) my interest deflates to negative 100. I'm just reading at the moment.

Because of the other part of the asymmetry- It is only "bad" to be "deprived" of good, if there is someone who exists to be deprived of good. — schopenhauer1

It's only good to prevent suffering if there's someone existing to benefit from that prevention.

Edit: have you figured out the reductio yet or are you going to continue to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about?

Maybe quote the whole thing for starters. And no, quite obviously alleviating specific suffering where no other solution is available then euthanasia is entirely different from a blanket claim we should stop procreating because of suffering. But your leaping ahead. Let's first start with the fact living obviously doesn't cause suffering.

If the reductio is based on the conclusion that nobody exists and your reply is, it's not a reductio when still someone exists, then quite simply you don't understand the argument. I can show you water but I can't make your drink it.

What's the problem? — schopenhauer1

That you don't understand a reductio ad absurdum. :roll:

If you are alive and you know the event leads to X, then there is no reductio — schopenhauer1

Lmao. If you don't pursue the conclusion to its extremes then indeed, by definition, you don't have a reductio ad absurdum. Your reply to my reductio is "let's imagine it isn't".

educate yourself : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum