Willy Wonka's Forced Game
Here's a thought experiment..
Let's say I am Willy Wonka..
I have created this world and will force others to enter it... My only rule is people have the options of either working at various occupations which I have lovingly created many varieties of, free-riding (which can only be done by a few and has to be done selectively lest one get caught, it is also considered no good in this world), or living day-to-day homelessly. The last option is a suicide pill if people don't like the arrangement. Is Willy Wonka moral? I mean he is giving many options for work, and even allowing you to test your luck at homelessness and free riding. Also, hey if you don't want to be in his arrangement, you can always kill yourself! See how beneficial and good I am to all my contestants?
There are lots of ways to feel strife and anxiety in my world.. There is generalized boredom, there are pressures from coworkers, there is pressure of joblessness, there are pressures of disease, disasters, mental illness, annoyances, malicious acts, accidents, and so much more that I have built into the world..
I have also created many people who will encourage everyone to also find my world loving so as to not have too many dropouts.
Let's say I am Willy Wonka..
I have created this world and will force others to enter it... My only rule is people have the options of either working at various occupations which I have lovingly created many varieties of, free-riding (which can only be done by a few and has to be done selectively lest one get caught, it is also considered no good in this world), or living day-to-day homelessly. The last option is a suicide pill if people don't like the arrangement. Is Willy Wonka moral? I mean he is giving many options for work, and even allowing you to test your luck at homelessness and free riding. Also, hey if you don't want to be in his arrangement, you can always kill yourself! See how beneficial and good I am to all my contestants?
There are lots of ways to feel strife and anxiety in my world.. There is generalized boredom, there are pressures from coworkers, there is pressure of joblessness, there are pressures of disease, disasters, mental illness, annoyances, malicious acts, accidents, and so much more that I have built into the world..
I have also created many people who will encourage everyone to also find my world loving so as to not have too many dropouts.
Comments (103)
What difference does it make?
If Willy can create any world he wants, then no, creating this one doesn't seem particularly moral.
You're back :smile:
I think you are being too generous regarding the suicide pill. The reality is a lot more distressing for the person doing the act, and for the people left behind.
What happens if Willy can imagine other worlds that are better, but the best he can do is create the one described in the OP?
True true. It's not much of an "option B" is it? Willy's a bit cynical here. More of "Well, it's an 'option' (wink, wink)."
Interesting.. Why are the fruits of the labor the summum bonum?
So that is all that matters here? So if I put someone in any X circumstance, as long as they have free choice, putting them in that circumstance itself makes no moral difference? That will lead to some weird conclusions...
I mean, what difference does anything make, man?
Then it cannot be something to be blamed for morally. Moral evaluations require some agency typically, the ability to do otherwise...
In any case, I take it you meant the thought experiment to shed some light on the real world. I don't think it does, because we indeed don't have the ability to create any world we want... and there is no one Willy that created this world to begin with.
They're not. The highest value is prevention of suffering. If said labor is needed (aka is preventing suffering) then it's fine. Because in that case not creating the factory is also harmful.
But you yourself created the conditions for the game. If the very creation of such a world is moral, then the creation of a pill for committing suicide in this world is also moral. The only thing the creator should do in this situation is not to punish the creature for the choice. Otherwise it will be immoral in itself.
Willy has the agency not to create the world or rather not to force others into the world in the first place, no?
Ok, so this is then interesting. So Willy should not have started the game, but now that he has, it must keep going?
Is not putting people into this forced circumstance itself suspect or immoral?
What circumstance? If creatures voluntarily leave the world you created, then most likely you are a bad creator. After all, you created a free world, and not just a theater for your own entertainment. Or theater?
exactly
Thing is, it’s a chocolate factory. Idk why Willy became a God all of a sudden. I’m assuming he has some purpose behind forcing all these people and is not doing it for shits and giggles.
Why would Willy consider creating that world in your example? What’s the motivation?
There's no real world equivalent for Willy. Like who does the forcing or creating? Not a single person, by a single action... how do you assign agency to something that happens over time compounding actions by many people?
Thank god, Willy Wonka. At least it's not another antinatalism discussion.
Ya no kidding. Its nice to see him try something new to discuss. Especially such a rich question with no relation to Antinatalism whatsoever.
How it doesnt count as prosthelytising which is forbidden I cannot tell. Its the same thing over and over with the only discussion offered is a tactic so he can whine about life.
I was just teasing S1. I don't get involved with antinatalist discussions much anymore. I've laid out my arguments, S1 and his friends have laid out theirs, and no one has been convinced.
I don't see what he does as proselytization. He just makes his philosophical point over and over. He's not promoting any ideology, organization, or business.
Isn’t antinatalism an ideology? If not, doesn’t it become ideological if the anti-Natalist cannot let the subject go and everything they “contribute” to discussion is either the anti Natalist point or the anti natalist point disguised as something else? Plus the counter arguments not being much acknowledged as the broken record plays on. How is that not promoting an ideology?
I don't understand something. What's the endgame with these types of arguments? Do you want to convince people that life is a pain-ridden mistake or do you want people to not have babies?
If people don't share these intuitions, I don't understand why AN continue arguing so frequently on these points.
As per your OP, is Willy Wonka the only option? Are there other jobs or hobbies that are meaningful? If there are other places outside Willy Wonka's factory, that may be worth pursuing. If Willy Wonka is all there is in the world, then people will have to see what works for them.
If it's the only posstible option in the world, the morality of Willy Wonka does not arise.
Do these "others" exist before you force them to enter your world?
The moderators here tend to use a light hand on these types of decisions, which is a good thing. S1 is a long-time established member. People respond to his threads. I don't see anything to get excited about. I usually just pass over his discussions.
Ya ya, if you wanna be all reasonable and measured. Pft. :wink:
...anyway, your enlightened response to his shenanigans aside I think my point still stands. The fact people respond isn’t persuasive, I could write complete trash on here and it would get responses. I’d bet the more trashy the more attention. Would you take that bet?
This bloody victim mentality again.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think there's plenty of Willys. I'm sure with your experience debating the matter, you've seen many people argue the 'option' as a defence for natalism.
I try hard to be. I think I succeed about 65% of the time.
Quoting DingoJones
Shrug.
So what makes this world "free"? That people can escape by suicide? What makes forcing people into such a situation moral? I didn't quite get that from your response.
He wants to see people navigate the ups and downs of the challenges he has set the parameters for and see if people can improve on the parameters for new technologies, etc. He does not know how far it can be taken, he just has the initial conditions. He also likes seeing the people grow up and learn.. He thinks of them as his "children". He feels the joy of a kind of parent to a child..
But it seems like you are saying that he should keep forcing more people into the world to play his game because as more people are forced in, they will rely on the people to maintain the jobs and keep the economy going so that people that already exist in the world have more workers to survive, etc.
How is birth not the same?
Thanks for making that distinction. This is my response when accused of this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521502
Indeed. You expose people to your game, suffering occurs, and escape is not easy. That one can escape by self-harm does not make the making of playing the game moral. I do see a lot of free will answers which is interesting. So if people have free will in this world, that makes forcing the players into the world moral? Doesn't seem to add up.
Isn't there a major connection to these two ideas?
Quoting Manuel
Can't you say that about any philosophical point? Doesn't philosophy have lots of (seemingly) unintuitive points that on further reflection become more understandable?
Quoting Manuel
No Willy Wonka has provided plenty of jobs.. it looks something like our world. Aren't I great for forcing my players into my awesome world?
Good question. No, these players only know this world.. What ever happened before this world, they have no memories of it. To the players, Wonkas world is the only world around.
Then no he shouldn't start it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Correct. Once started he shouldn't stop it.
There is according to AN. Most people do not subscribe to AN. So it looks to me as if you wanted people to feel bad for merely existing. Or alternatively, you just try to make people see how bad life is. I don't see how doing this is a benefit, if you succeed in persuading one person, you've just made them miserable.
There are other ways to inform people about the downsides of having children...
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't see the benefit in persuading people from the perspective of AN. Other philosophical points are meant, or I think should be made, to help other people, not to depress them. You don't need AN to point out serious issues that can be addressed, such as climate change.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree that in my case, having children would be a mistake. Irrespective of that if you just look at kids, the vast majority of them are fascinated by the world. So it's only "forced" on that small percentage that think life is a mistake. It's a small minority. Otherwise, the issue of being forced to live doesn't arise.
Yeah that's not depressing haha.
Quoting Manuel
So as long as Willy can keep his contestants from feeling forced, the game itself is okay for Willy to perpetuate and continue to force? You know, if you don't educate slaves and you keep them feeling that their situation isn't that bad, they might go along with it too and at least long enough to make more slaves. If they don't "feel" like slaves, hey all the better. Granted, free "choices" is the difference here, but then are those "choices" really free in the non-slave scenario? Is simply having choices enough to make the situation "good"? As a slave, you can feel fascinated with the work you do, your environs, etc. Yes, there is more one can feel fascinated with as a non-slave, but one is still limited in the conditions.
I didn't say it wasn't? But we should try and do something about it, if not for future generations, for all the animals we are killing for no reason other than extraction of resources and consumption. If we all disappeared today, we wouldn't have helped other life at all. That's bad in general.
Quoting schopenhauer1
If contestants do not feel forced, what's the problem? People aren't as stupid as is sometimes assumed, they know when they're being used.
And those that don't like this at all have a way out. Not an easy one, clearly, but the option exists. And in the end we all exit the factory anyway. Why not enjoy what we can instead of complaining about it?
Jeez man, I'm generally a very pessimistic person and have pretty bad mood swings.
Yet you make me feel like I have panglossian views about the world.
Guess we have different moral frameworks. I wouldn't presume to put another human in a game (of life or otherwise) that lasts many years and is only exited through painful self-harm. The option for "work", "homelessness", "free-riding" (and resent from thereof), and "suicide" should be cold comfort not shrugging who cares. Just because it's a familiar devil doesn't mean it's not a devil. It's just that the devil has been wearing plain clothes this whole time perhaps.
Wonka is cruel because unlike the real world he never added things that cause joy, pleasure, laughter, play, and so on.
I know you’re not addressing me but my answer to this is: definitely yes.
If everyone in Wonka’s world feels it’s worth it, then absolutely keep on enforcing. What’s the worst that can happen? Someone will exist that finds worthwhile to exist? Doesn’t seem like a bad outcome.
Ok, so let's add in that the game is definitely not something of infinite pleasure. People don't just feel pleasure from these activities or just existing. There is a lot of intermediate to negative values placed on each activity in the game. So the game is not one of paradise proportions but much more mediocre. Wonka just doesn't have the ability to create "the best of all worlds" for each individual experience.
Point taken. How much joy, laughter, etc. does it take to ameliorate that Wonka has forced people into this world with the conditions explained in the OP (work, homelessness, etc.)?
It wouldn't take much if he sacrifices a great deal of his time to provide, protect, and raise us to thrive in his world. I would be quite grateful, personally.
What happens if someone is not happy with the arrangement- everything from work, homelessness, and suicide options?
Also, what makes forcing the participants into the world moral vs. immoral? Is just the fact that people are sometimes positive at certain moments justifiable really? So are slaves, etc. The only difference is the range of options is larger, that I agree. It's still a bounded set of conditions and rules nonetheless.
Edit: What happens when the contingent conditions of harms the built into his "game" affect people more negatively than they originally bargained for, even for the initially "happy" people who were "ok" with it?
Although I strongly disagree with your position on antinatalism, the subject that really annoys me is free will. A month ago, there were six threads active within a five day period. No, I don't propose that the number of free will discussions be should limited, but I reserve the right to whine about it.
Yeah granted. I can see how repeated topics can annoy people, but you said it yourself, just ignore them if you don't like it.. You gotta think, there are really only a handful of perennial questions and philosophy deals with many of them.. just from different perspectives.
I would tell him happiness isn't all its cracked up to be.
If Wonka forcibly removes them from their home and imprisons him in his place it would be immoral. If he creates them, or if they grow from the stuff of his world, he is forcing nothing and morality doesn't factor into it at all.
Not an AN anymore but I keep hearing this. This would imply that having children is never wrong. It would also imply that genetically modifying someone to be blind and deaf is not wrong since you're not forcing anything on anyone, therefore morality doesn't factor in (assuming you don't think a sperm or egg is a person). It would also imply that if a certain couple, upon hearing that their child would have dozens of severe genetic illnesses due to hidden genes that they have, would not be doing anything immoral by having said child.
Do you agree with each of the above 3? If not then why?
I think positions that attempt to say that having children is not a moral issue, and can never be wrong are ridiculous.
Given that that's what you reduce life to - a succession of painful events - then of course you're correct.
If pain is bad, then so is life. But it is a tautology.
And it's an easy line of thinking. If you can prevent people from having babies, then you don't have to worry about those who are alive and suffering now. That's a bit more difficult to address, it seems to me.
There's just one problem, which many here have already pointed out: life is about clearly more than pain alone.
You need to justify the claim the life is mostly about pain.
Then it depends on the world I suppose. Is the average experience good or bad?
I've been thinking about it more and I don't think the notion of forcing a situation on someone because you want to is so immoral in the end. Assuming the situation is on average enjoyed by the people that had it. Even if there is a chance they are harmed and even if there is no need to do it (as in, no greater harm is alleviated from them or anyone else).
Maybe an analogy would be: Throwing a surprise party for someone. There is a very small chance they get a heart attack and die. Or maybe they're tired and really don't want a party right now but don't want to disappoint anyone either, so end up in a lose lose position. Does that make it wrong?
The similarities with birth are: In both cases consent is not given, the "gift" would be enjoyed by most (which is why it's called a gift not a curse), there is a chance it causes harm, and the recipient would not miss it at all (the recipient would not suffer for lack of party as he wasn't expecting one, nor does anyone suffer for lack of being born, so there is no argument from prevention of suffering or negative ethics). In other words, it is imposing a situation that is potentially harmful, without consent, even though doing so is not needed.
So are surprise gifts wrong now? I wouldn't think so.
So using the dignity threshold idea, if the magnitude of the surprise is controlling another person to a high degree, then yes. Life guard tapped on shoulder vs. life guard taken to a lifetime of teaching lifeguarding lessons, etc.
Are those that are born to live a life of horrific pain and suffering a reasonable sacrifice for the majority being born?
Sure, that's a variable. I guess we just don't agree about how big an imposition life is or how terrible it is. You think it's more like springing a trap, I think it's a lot better than that.
An "acceptable consequence"? Yes. "Sacrifice"? No.
Some people are going to get heart attacks from surprise parties. Doesn't make surprise parties wrong.
Compulsion? I was only talking about free will. Freedom of choice. And about the inadmissibility of condemnation for the choice of a free person.
After all, it is only in religion that they first talk about "free will" and then punish for "wrong choices." And this is no longer freedom.
I think there is a difference between moral behavior towards flesh-and-blood beings and moral behavior between abstract beings. Claiming moral behavior towards flesh-and-blood beings is one thing, measurable and visible, while moral behavior towards abstract beings is another, little more than a feat of imagination.
There is nothing abstract about genetic modifications, sperms and eggs, couples choosing between the life and extirpation of their child. These decisions have demonstrable effects and involve real behavior. So I'm not saying having children is not a moral issue; I'm saying not having children on the basis of protecting an abstract being from being forced into suffering is not a moral issue. It's an imaginary one. When a sense of morality extends no further than the skull, can be accomplished in the comfort of one's home and without any interaction with real beings, I would argue it isn't morality at all.
So, in the OP's example, even if Willy Wanka took everyone to literal Heaven, where they'll experience the most blissful state imaginable, he violated their autonomy, which makes it immoral. That's kind of a deontological position, I guess. A utilitarian would not agree.
I was thinking the same thing too, but I thought of it a different way. When people have kids, they're not literally bringing a new person into the world, they're creating a set of conditions that will result in new person X. So then the question becomes, is it moral to create a set of conditions that will actualize a potential person who can't give consent (because they don't exist yet)?
I think some morality applies there because I think it would be evil to create a set of conditions that would bring a person into the world to experience abject suffering (say the parents want to have a kid to torture it). It would be evil to do that even if the attempt failed. But if it's evil to do it, and the attempt failed, and there's no new person, who was harmed?
So I think my position falls more with deontological, but deontological based on an "analog" rule. It's analog in that a certain degree of all pervasive control would have to be meet a threshold to consider it wrong, as dignity was being violated. So @RogueAI you mention that even a heaven would not be moral if the conditions were forced upon a new being. However, if that indeed was absolutely the case for each individual, I don't see the threshold being met. Though, you can make a case that since it is controlling the person's life, it was still a violation.
Here is the problem I see.. People do not see the conditions of normal life as the boundedness that it is. So if I said, "force a lifeguard to teach lifeguarding school" or a "slave to work on my farm" that sounds sufficiently bounded to consider this a gross violation of the person's dignity. However, having a range of options that life seems to offer, seems to be enough to make people think that life itself does not meet the threshold for violating dignity. However, consider the Willy Wonka scenario:
1.) It's near impossible to escape either work, free-riding off other's work, homelessness, or death (suicide or otherwise).
2.) It's near impossible to overcome the contingent harms that impress themselves on each and every person daily.
3.) It is near impossible to overcome the boundedness of being a particular animal living in a place, time, etc.
So our condition is more bounded than people think. They only think of the range within the boundedness and not the limits themselves. This makes them turn a blind eye to the forced situation and not think of it is a gross violation.
Ok, so when a couple is deciding not to have a child because he/she would suffer a lot that’s a moral decision.
Quoting NOS4A2
But also this.
I don’t understand. Having a child has demonstrable consequences and involves real behavior. Why is the decision not a moral one? What’s imaginary or weird about choosing not to have a child because of the consequences that would entail?
Oh no..... I have to work and I may occasionally get injured as an animal that lives in a certain place and time.... what a nightmare!
Quoting schopenhauer1
That... is the same thing. No one is seriously saddened because they’re limited by being an animal in space. No one has thought to themselves “I can’t be in 2 places at once, this is so awful”.
People are aware of the limits.
You can say it sarcastically and it doesn't change my point. It makes nice performative theater if you're into that though. Yes, economic realities make up a significant and pervasive portion of life. It is a condition.
Quoting khaled
You are taking it too literally.. but go ahead if you feel that it helps you win points in the argument. You can think of plenty of limits (hence the "human condition"). I was mainly talking about genetics, personalities, limitations on our individual character, of environment, etc. Anyways, no need to belabor the point. You certainly recognize we have limitations, and so do others. However, when specifically speaking about birth as compared to other forced events, it is the options and not the limitations that people gravitate to such that they don't feel that life itself has the impositions similarly to the other limiting forced events.. Yes there is more of a range, but it's more of a range of bounded in limits that are not necessarily what you, I, or he would have wanted. But because it's all we have, it's like that makes it acceptable. But so the slave makes do, the lifeguard gets comfortable with his lot, etc. Yes people adjust, but that doesn't mean that the original "being put into the conditions" was right or put positive X attribute here.
This relates back to my main point in that the limitations and conditions of life, on a subject that has self-reflection and can evaluate their own existential situation, is pervasively controlled by various necessary conditions that one must deal with. This meets the threshold as discussed earlier.
Again. Those are the same thing. To state all the options is to imply all the limitations and vice versa.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What would you have wanted before you were born? Nonsensical question.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Correct. I'm pointing out it's one people don't mind generally.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No it doesn't since this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Is true of surprise parties as well as life.
You make a "type argument" (as in, this imposition is of this or that type) when really all there is here is an "extent argument" (that this position is too imposing). But you don't want an extent argument because it's not objective.
And you keep conflating the two. You start out with "Birth has properties A, B and C which make it immoral". Then someone replies "Surprise parties have A, B and C and you don't think they're immoral generally". So you change to "Birth has too much A and too much B and too much C". Then someone replies "Most people don't think it's too much". Then you go back to "But it has A, B and C, don't you see!". And around and around we go.
Quoting khaled
It is necessary that people with lives full of unbearable pain and suffering be born, for the majority to be born. This is what I meant by calling them a sacrifice. However I'm not looking to score points, "acceptable consequence" works fine.
Quoting khaled
This isn't going to be a useful intuition pump for me, as I think the happiness surprise parties create for people with the worst lives, may off-set any suffering caused by a very very small amount of people having a heart attack as a result. If this is not correct, and surprise parties cause deeper suffering than they alleviate - I believe they are wrong.
Not really. I can tell a slave.. Look you have all the work you can do.. I'm giving you the choice to work the field in the morning, noon, or night. You can also repair the equipment, and prepare the meals too. See all your options? See, don't look at it as limitations, but from the point of view of the options. In the world of the slave, perhaps they adjust to this too.
Quoting khaled
Then you are misapplying it. I am saying if we were to have a choice of an ideal world for ourselves. And indeed, it's a nonstarter, but we can still want it. We tend not to think in absolute what we want, because we have to accept the reality, as there is no other choice (excepting suicide, which is a choice too I guess).
Quoting khaled
Not if given greater range of options. But there are limits, as we both agree. Being self-reflective, we don't just "have" we "know we have" and that is a world of difference in what we know isn't here, and what we have to deal with nonetheless.
Quoting khaled
No I explicitly stated that I am going with the extent argument (as you phrase it), and am saying life indeed meets the threshold of degree.
More likely we are disagreeing about the perspective of the reality of the situation. You are coming at it from a more subjectivist point of view. Thus, for you, if the slave thinks his conditions are suitable, it is suitable. However, if the slave had more perspective and given a chance to see the limitations, perhaps the slave would realize there was an injustice/harm done to him. However, the injustice this time is not in terms of relative position to other humans, but of the case that existence itself has injustices that we deal with being humans having to survive, find comfort, and entertainment within a contingently harmful world (disease, disaster, dealing with other people, harmful situations, negative experiences, etc.), with certain drives, within a socioeconomic and historical framework, etc. etc. All this is taken as a matter of course, but it is not just that we deal with them, but we know that we deal with them. We can self reflect. This even goes back to a topic I had previously that in any survival task, one needed to survive in a certain socioeconomic setting (the usual mode of human survival), one can evaluate it as negative. The very fact we can evaluate and know we feel negative towards tasks we do as we do them, is something to consider. You can train yourself to "be a man", "try to repress the emotion", "overcome your dissatisfaction", etc. but it's there in the first place. In fact, even people's attempts to belittle those who complain, can be said to just be a cultural meme to ensure that this idea doesn't bring people to despair and to discourage others for bringing it up.
Yup.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I highly doubt a slave doesn’t see the limitations. They’re tied to his ankle. That’s the point here.
Everyone sees the limitations. Everyone knows that:
Quoting schopenhauer1
And that:
Quoting schopenhauer1
We know these limitations exist. We are aware of them. And most people STILL think that life doesn’t meet the threshold.
The problem with the extent argument that you’re going with is that it can never be objective. Where you set the bar for “too much imposition” is completely arbitrary. So long as you’re consistent in applying it (so everything above the bar is bad, everything under is good). But then again, how “bad” everything is as an imposition is also subjective. You can consistently hold that forcing someone into slavery for 30 years is worse, or better, than forcing someone to eat a spider. It depends on how bad you think eating spiders is as compared to slavery.
You can’t convince someone that thinks forcing someone to eat a spider is worse than slavery otherwise. Well, they’ll probably be convinced if they were slaves themselves for a while. But in the case of imposing life you can’t do that. You can’t say “oh you just don’t know how bad life is” because the person you’re talking to is also, well, alive.
Point is most people, despite being aware of the limitations, think that life is not too bad an imposition. And they can do this consistently, regardless of their positions on other impositions. Given that, what’s the point of trying to argue otherwise from extent? There is no argument. That can be had. It’s like trying to argue that vanilla is objectively better than chocolate.
But you want some objectivity of your argument which due to the nature of extent arguments is not achievable.
I think people simply can't see any other way but coping with it. It's more psychological and complex than simply:
Quoting khaled
They do if you ask them outright. But what about in all the details (X negative situation?). I don't know it just doesn't seem as straightforward as, "just ask the question".
David Benatar provides some ideas about our own misapprehension.. Pollyannaism, adjusting to worse circumstance than our intention or ideal, and comparing bad things with worse things to feel better. These are more defense mechanisms that we learn to use (or perhaps have some bias for initially) yet distort in some sense the absolute position that a) we don't have the range of options we ideally would have wanted, we adjust to worse outcomes (doesn't mean that makes it better), and we compare to less good circumstances (that still doesn't make it less bad). See this quote:
Also see here under Humans' unreliable assessment of life's quality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar
1- If you think life is not too big an imposition then it’s because you’re biased and have an unreliable assessment.
2- Therefore life is objectively too big an imposition.
3- So don’t have kids.
That’s called begging the question. You have to entertain the possibility that someone can think life doesn’t meet the threshold without calling them wrong and biased by definition. Reminds of “feminists” going on about how terrible the patriarchy is, and whenever someone challenges their views it’s “oh you’re just a man you wouldn’t know” or “oh you’re just a patriarchy slave you wouldn’t know (in case of women)”
You’re arguing in bad faith when you automatically assume the person you’re talking to is deluded if they don’t agree with you.
Not at all. It can be the case people have the wrong assessment. People misevaluate things all the time. Slavery, genocide, torture, religious persecution, gladiatorial events, etc etc are egregious examples of mass level objective misevaluations. They did not judge the value as not bad for example.
You're caught up on the idea that something that seems pervasive must make it thus true or insulated from being in the category of bad judgment, possibly due to lack of perspective in this case.
Sure, but to know that anyone who disagrees with you has a bad assessment is the definition of arguing in bad faith.
You pretend to:
Quoting khaled
But really you don't. Nothing can ever change your mind, and you just know you're right. This is text book argument from bad faith.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No not at all. I'm putting forward the possibility that someone can be aware of all the limitations of life, have the exact same perspective as you, and still conclude that it doesn't meet the threshold. I'm sure there are countless people who have suffered much more than you and seen all the same limitations and still had kids in good conscience.
You disagree with this idea. You think "If only these people had my perspective, if only they knew how bad it can get" they would all think like you. And so by definition, anyone who disagrees with you is simply lacking in perspective. Yet you pretend to entertain their perspectives while knowing us unenlightened peasants simply don't understand the limits of their situation as well as you do.
That's called arguing in bad faith. Again:
Quoting khaled
There can be no argument with you if you automatically think that the interlocutor is wrong (or lacking perspective) for disagreeing with you.
An egregious version of this to show the point is that a Nazi or white supremacist who disagreed with me, is making a bad assessment.. but I am willing to entertain that due to well-studied psychological mechanisms, people tend to particularly make bad assessments about the experiences of their own lives. That is possibly because the perspective is very hard to get out of. A strong bias, reinforced by social pressures, makes sense for why this assessment is inaccurate.
Other examples are people with addiction problems, people who identify with their tormentor, people with certain psychological disorders that are more apparently distorting their lives. However, it is harder to understand how any neuro-typical (if that's a thing?) person constantly misevaluates due to strong genetic, environmental, and social pressures.
Quoting khaled
No, what I am giving is a reason for why many people often view life positively, despite the negatives. I gave examples of slaves, former "not bad" evaluations etc. I am giving the reasons behind some of this misevaluation. Pollyannaism, adjustments, and comparisons are a few very solid psychological reasons for our misevaluations towards an optimism bias.
Look at slavery.. People had the same general notions of fairness and justice, but people constantly put a blind eye to how it applied to other people. In ancient Rome, it was just "the way of things". Some people were slaves, some were not. During the 17-19th century, it was a racial thing. They misapplied their judgements, turned a blind eye. There was a cognitive dissonance there. There was a constant lack of perspective.
So can "this" many people be wrong about "their own lives"? Yes, they can. Now, let's go back to my own argument (related to Pollyanaism pace Benatar).. That is to say, people think that life's conditions have options- ergo, life is appropriately okay to bestow on other people. But I am pointing to what the other side of that coin is, which is that it is really a bounded set of options within the limits of the conditions of life.
One of the limiting conditions of life can be characterized like I did previously:
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is just one example of the limitations. Further, this is pretty much equivalent to a game that one must do- the game of life itself.. It has a set of systemic rules to "master" to some extent, and a series of challenges, many of which are not known beforehand to overcome. One can roll all of these aspects into the "challenge/overcoming challenge game".
Is it "right' to bestow on others a challenge/overcoming challenge game with the limitations of life?
Is it "right" to create more animals that can self-reflect to the point of evaluating as negative the very tasks needed to survive, while they are in the very act of surviving?
Is it "right" to create the limitations on people as laid out by Benatar in that previous quote?
You can say "these are acceptable", but then I will point to the fact that people throughout history have made wrong evaluations. A lack of perspective in how life is bad is possibly part of the problem for these bad judgements. Our bias to see the options and not the limitations, is one big part I think. In other words, "You have options!" is thus refuted, because it is "bounded in limits", and the limits have been pointed out X, Y, Z.. As I have been doing in many of my posts.
These limiting factors and negative aspects, indeed contribute to making life pervasively controlling, and it contributes to overlooking various things on behalf of someone else in order to create X situation come about (a child "needs" to be born for X reason). This would be violating the threshold of dignity..The proverbial "forced lifeguarding school". Yes, more options, but move back a bit, and its options within limits, sufficiently so that is indeed similar to the lifeguard situation on second look.
Yes, and that would be arguing in bad faith too. The Nazi is wasting his time talking to you, he won't change your mind ever. And likely not you his.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I could name for example: A desire to seem unique as a reason ANs are "misevaluating" life. And that would be just as valid as your argument.
Whether or not it's a misevaluation is precisely the problem in question. You think you can objectively show it is. I don't see that. Because again, everyone here sees the same limits as you, and simply doesn't think they're that bad.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Let me ask you this: What boundaries of life would you find acceptable to have children in? If you respond to nothing else respond to this.
If you can't answer that, then yours is a type argument rejecting all unconsented impositions. In which case it fails because you don't apply it to general day to day life (surprise parties are ok for example, generally)
Quoting schopenhauer1
Stop with the type arguments. This also applies to surprise parties. You're wasting typing by repeatedly pointing out that "life is an unconsented game". So are many things you find ok. We are now arguing about whether it is bad enough.
Quoting schopenhauer1
None of this makes me wrong btw. People in history have been wrong before. You can't generalize from that that I'm wrong now. I could just as validly argue that some people have been pessimistic throughout history before (Like thinking moving pictures will be impossible, or that science will only advance this far or or or) and you're one of those people. So let's not play the "People have been wrong before therefore you're wrong now" game.
But also, if "You have options!" is always refuted by "You are limited", then yours is just a type argument. This amounts to rejecting all forms of unconsented impositions. Which you clearly don't do. So yours would be an inconsistent position.
Quoting schopenhauer1
For you. Maybe. But so far you've presented so many limitations of life and most people that have read them have continued to think it's not above the threshold. You've been sharing your perspective, and people have been listening and seeing its truth, and still they think life is under the threshold. And they can do this consistently.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you recognize that most people here see all the same limits and don't think they're sufficient?
Where do you get your objectivity from? What makes you think that if everyone saw the same limitations that you do they would come to the same conclusion? And what makes you think your conclusion is the "right" one that needs to be shared?
But again, this is why I brought up the extreme of Nazis and white supremacists. These are things that we can more likely agree are "objectively" bad, even if some people hold them to be true beliefs. What I am saying is that where it at first seems like you can never be "wrong" about your own evaluations, perhaps, there is an objectively "right" view here as well that is more accurate, if one were to stop to take the time with these biases. And you say that arguing with the Nazi is just a waste of time, but there have been numerous cases where neo-Nazis have disowned their previous beliefs and hatred and have taken on the better one. But you see, what makes it "better" not to be a Nazi or racist? What makes it "better" to not overlook the numerous cases one is being "harmed" and to further, not start this for another person? Before you respond, let me tie this in with something else, but I will answer some of your other quotes first.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
Right, so it is a (what you call) extent argument I am making, at this point. That is to say, starting life for someone else is sufficiently meeting a threshold that is crossed to make it a violation and thus wrong. I think this part, I have made the case that the limitations and conditions thus described are part of the reasons. Let me make some of the connecting steps:
1) A surprise party is equivalent to tapping the lifeguard. It is not overlooking the person to such a degree that it becomes a violation of dignity.
2) However, if you were to force a person into giving surprise parties for the rest of his life, that would be a gross violation. Now, we can probably all agree though that's true, that is an absurd scenario. But like the lifeguarding school, I think it is analogous to life really, and not that far off. But instead of the limited option of surprise party for life, it is the challenge/overcoming challenge game for life. Within this game you have an odd assortment of known and unknowns..
3) What is known is the limitations which are the options of sociocultural needs (necessary to meet drives like survival, comfort-seeking, and restlessness).. but these include things like either: Working, homelessness, free-riding, and suicide.
4) What is unknown is the immense amounts of contingent harms such as emotional anguish, physical ailments, disasters, annoyances, and a vast, very long list of other things that a person can experience and be.
Taking the challenges of the limitations (I call this "necessary suffering" as it is systemic to existence as a human mainly) and the contingent harms, we have a sufficiently large enough qualitative and quantitative amount of (for lack of better word) "stuff" that would count for pervasive controlling and overlooking of the negative aspects done to someone else. This would then cause the dignity violation.
Now, from here, you will say, "I deem it not sufficient". And so be it. At this point we can at least agree that individuals must make up their own mind as to whether to argument makes a logical, emotional, or other appeal. I am fine with that, but I will present my case nonetheless.
Quoting khaled
My point was simply that people's pervasive ideas on subjects were wrong and now taken as a matter of course.
Quoting khaled
Okay. Again, I present my case. That's all I can do. People's being convinced of it, doesn't necessarily mean anything. Again, going back to abolitionists- they were a minority in American life in the 1800s. And even if one was against slavery, giving black people equal civil rights under the law and voting rights was even less popular. It took a war with 600,000 dead Americans to "resolve" the issue. And did it resolve the issue really? No, Jim Crow in the American South persisted up until the 1960s (at least). So, yeah people can persistently have a point of view, no doubt.
Quoting khaled
Right, see above.. But also tying back to my first response, I think there is a sort of "metaphysical" and "epistemological" issue in regards to ethics/values. (In the end, they are probably both epistemological, but I want to make the distinction somehow). You have called it "type vs. extent". I want to keep my distinction though.
1) Metaphysically, someone can be "wrong" about what value is that is wrong or right. So for example, someone can think slavery is not wrong. But that itself would be wrong.
2) Epistemologically, someone can be "wrong" about how much of something would put it in the category of "wrong". So for example, I force my child into doing chores at home because he needs to know that he needs to contribute as well. Well, that is usually not considered as "meeting the threshold" for slavery. But then let's say, I really want to rest from work today, and I sent my eight year old to go to the factory and start making the widgets that I usually make there. Well, hold up now.. This is starting to look like child slavery (obviously assuming no one catches the eight year old to stop him from working there). So what is making the difference? There is a threshold of some kind, where something that is not wrong, becomes wrong with a sufficient (as you call it) extent.
Now, there are often one or both of mistakes going on here with antinatalism. On the metaphysical side, they are not seeing the violation of dignity itself as wrong. That is to say, they don't even recognize that overlooking a large amount of negatives on someone else's behalf is just "wrong" or they don't think anything about a "typical" life counts as crossing the threshold of "overlooking a large amount of negatives on someone else's behalf". I don't want to keep repeating all the negatives that one is overlooking on someone else's behalf, but I think it is a large enough in quantity and quality that it does cross the threshold.
I have given numerous (not directly in this thread, but look at my corpus as a whole for this) accounts of the negatives which we are often not seeing, or perhaps just not clearly reasoning it out. I have also given some ideas as to why it is such a pervasive thing to overlook the overlooking that is going on, and what is being overlooked.
Quoting schopenhauer1
We can both say this. It needs to be shown.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don’t. That’s the point.
Quoting schopenhauer1
How is this unknown? Seems pretty known to me. I know what all of those things are.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don’t think we do. Despite seeing all of those contingent harms and limitations. And I’m not in the minority by thinking this.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Oh. Not much more to discuss then is there?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes but you think your case has objectivity it doesn’t have. That’s what I’m showing here. Your idea that the contingent harms and limitations place the enforcement of life above the threshold, is not an “objectively correct” idea. That’s the point. This is the nature of arguments from extent. When you think something is too bad that doesn’t mean others are wrong in thinking it’s not that bad. Even while having all the same info you do.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Correct. And where that threshold is is not objective. By definition. That’s the downfall of extent arguments. Someone can think that even forcing their child to do chores is slave labor. Heck, one can consistently think that sending them to a factory to work is fine but making them do the laundry is slave labor, if they happen to truly despise laundry. There will always be enough differences about 2 tasks that you can say one is bad to enforce and another is ok to enforce consistently.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Key words: I think.
You have no objective or privileged point of view when it comes to that.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right. And I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering that they didn’t know of before. And yet they were not antinatalists. Because they don’t think those things go over the threshold.
And thus why I split the metaphysical and epistemological distinction in ethics. So for example, the ancient Aztecs found it perfectly acceptable, and even morally right, to use captured peoples as sacrifices to their god to ensure the sun rises. Some societies found certain forms of cannibalism acceptable. Now, certain forms of eating animal meat and sacrificing of things for a greater good is deemed as acceptable, but when it meets a certain threshold is now seen as no good (limits have been met for no longer moral or at least acceptable). At some point, it may be that people will see the tyranny of putting people into the challenge/overcoming challenge game.. that giving people the "options" (or limits really) of various types of "work", or homelessness/poverty, or simply "go kill yourself", might in fact be not right, not acceptable, not moral.
Most people would probably agree that if I made someone addicted to a drug like heroin deliberately and then locked them in a basement room without heroin, leaving them to experience the suffering of withdrawal, squirming in deprivation, that would be unethical, I’m making them suffer by creating an addiction and leaving them to starve, I should have just not done that. Now let’s say hypothetically I had desire serum – not heroin, it’s just liquid that contains any possible random desire one could think of. Some trivial, like the desire to eat spaghetti with tomato sauce, some unrealistic, like the desire to transform into a different animal or travel back into the past, some that would require hurting others in order to fulfill, like the desire to rape and torture for gratification. I take that stuff and inject it into people in their sleep without knowing their life circumstances, gambling with how this will affect them in the future. Perhaps they wake up the next day craving a certain type of meal, perhaps they will crave to live in a different country, perhaps they will crave to become someone they are not or travel into the future, perhaps they will crave to rape a kitten with a sharp object – I don’t know.
Would that be ethical? I think the answer is no.
And that in a sense sums up why procreation is wrong. A conscious lifeform is essentially a desire machine – a pleasure addict. We have to chase pleasure/relief, or we are subjected to the alternative of suffering/harm, having a child is creating a slave to pleasure.
Eat or hunger. Drink or thirst. Socialize or get lonely. Sleep or fatigue. Breathe or suffocate. So on and so forth. Pleasure or suffering. More pleasure of satiation, less suffering of hunger. More suffering of hunger, less pleasure of satiation.
[i]It’s fair to say that before procreating, you also don’t know how this will turn out for the victim.
Perhaps they will largely experience trivial desires, perhaps unrealistic to fulfill ones, perhaps those that require harming someone else, so you are creating an addict to pleasure without guarantee of them always being able to get their fix, and if they don’t get it, they suffer, they are harmed, that’s how sentient life works. No certainty how tormenting the desires will be. No certainty how long lasting the fulfillment of those desires will be. No guarantee the desires can even realistically be fulfilled. No guarantee that the desires won’t require the victim to harm someone else to fulfill.[/i] [i]So it’s very similar to the hypothetical of desire liquid, you’re creating an addict with no guarantee that they’ll be able to get their pleasure fix to prevent them from suffering. You force a pleasure addict into an existence where there is no guarantee that they’ll be able to obtain whichever pleasure is needed to prevent painful withdrawal symptoms. Some desires might be easy to fulfill, like the desire to eat a certain meal, some are just basic needs/wants/desires.
It’s already rather high maintenance though and not every pleasure addict/desire machine gets what they need to be properly satiated. So while you aren’t forcibly making someone addicted to heroin and then locking them in your basement room without any heroin, you are risking creating that scenario of experiencing intense deprivation, you create the pleasure addiction with no guarantee of absolute fairness, where the victim is always guaranteed to get whatever they need to avoid suffering. You create someone with a need for movement, they desire to move their limbs, an addiction we usually just take for granted to be satiated at all times, and then they get hit by a car and are paralyzed for the rest of their life. But even if one desire machine/pleasure addict always obtained their pleasure fix just in time, fulfilled every desire just in time before the suffering got out of hand, without harming anyone else in the process, they still wouldn’t miss their life if you never created them, so I still don’t think they justify all the deprived, suffering addicts.
Child A is experiencing a desire for christmas gifts and is happy upon receiving gifts on christmas, child B is also tormented by such a desire and dies of leukemia before christmas, not getting their wish of a perfect christmas fulfilled.
I[i]believe it’s within reason for me to say that if we didn’t risk creating either of these children by stopping reproduction, child A would not be trapped in some kind of pre-birth torture chamber, horribly tormented over their lack of christmas gifts, crying their eyes out over no gifts. So why create child B? Child A would not miss happiness if they didn’t exist, so don’t risk child B.
The would-be happy ones would not miss their happiness if they didn’t exist, their addiction would not exist, so there’d be no unresolved cravings anywhere else if you simply abstain from creating the cravings in the first place, so why risk creating unhappy ones in the process? No matter how great your life supposedly is, it not existing would have not hurt you in the least.[/i]
Overall I think your Careful Natalism idea aligns with my intuitions but there are things like this where I'm stumped
It’s once again arguing against every kind of unconsented imposition (because they come with desires that may or may not be fulfilled) while the person saying it probably doesn’t think all unconsented impositions are wrong. Or if they are arguing that life imposes too much then there is no objectivity behind it and the argument is not convincing. It’s like going around trying to convince everyone that people shouldn’t drink coffee because it’s “too bitter”. For you maybe, but that’s no argument.
@Albero
So I guess this comes down to how the “majority” assesses something for you. Can a majority of people be wrong on the morality of something? Pick an egregious ethical wrong in history like slavery. At one point a majority of people felt neutral to strongly about its rightness. Yet this changed. Was slavery (or pick anything similar) right because the majority thought it so? At some point the logic and emotional appeal of the extent that slavery was overlooking someone else and was an egregious violation of their dignity landed with a majority of people. In that case, the application of basic rights to all peoples was the main ethical justification that was voiced. And emotional appeals such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Toms Cabin and slave accounts of their plight were some of the biggest catalysts.
So of course ANs try to appeal to some sort of emotional understanding of the extent of over overlooking. Perhaps with enough examples, thought experiments, etc people will see that this too meets the threshold- reminding people that it is putting people in X situation or experience that is pervasive and controlling. Slavery was wrong then as is now, it’s just people’s capacity or perspective to understand this that changed.
I never made an argument from majority. The words "Majority" or "Most" don't appear in my comment at all.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm not sure what you mean by the way you phrased this. If you mean to say that it "objectively" meets the threshold and people are not seeing it then you're wrong. There is no objectivity to extent arguments. Again, one can consistently hold that being enslaved for 30 years is better than eating a cockroach.
If by it you just mean that people will change their mind and come to see things as you do: The chances are basically 0. Because whoever thinks that life was a mistake will die with no descendants, leaving only the people who think life isn't a mistake behind. All it takes is 2 people of opposite genders to disagree, and the whole "project" is for nothing.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Agreed. But I don't think you can tell people much about how horrible life is that they don't already know. So it doesn't seem to me like a lack of perspective.
Yet you said:
Quoting khaled
And so did the majority back in the day that ripped out hearts, took indigenous land, condoned chattel slavery, condoned child labor, etc. etc. etc. You have been making a tacit and explicit argument from majority.
Quoting khaled
Well, if people enslave someone in some country, that doesn't mean its right. Just because people engage in an activity, that doesn't mean its right. This argument even you know has got to lead to absurd conclusions about morality.
Quoting khaled
That I don't think is true. People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. I mean, a slave born in a relatively tolerant setting may think that slavery isn't that bad. A person who engages in certain psychological gymnastics might justify a lot of things. And surveys and interviews cannot be relied upon just because at a time of the interview someone says "such and such". Are people's assessments of themselves always accurate? Are personality tests completely accurate just because someone is answering questions about themselves? So then people don't have ideals of what they think they are? Of what they think the interviewer wants to see? Of what society wants? Of what they think is good vs. what they do? Etc. etc.
False. An argument from authority would be “AN is wrong because most people don’t agree with it”
I was only pointing out that you offered no new perspectives on life that people didn’t know of. You didn’t inform anyone of suffering they weren’t aware of. So your claim that it’s due to a lack of perspective is just false. That was the point of this quote:
Quoting khaled
It says so right there. “I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering they didn’t know about before”. And so it’s not a lack of perspective.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Didn’t say anything like that. All I said was: It won’t work, and why. Because you seemed to be claiming it will.
On the other hand if you meant that there is some sort of objectivity to your view, that can’t be true because it’s an argument from extent.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right, my point being everyone has heard your phrasing before. That life is a mistake, or that it’s enforced slavery, etc. It’s not a new take.
False. It's precisely because people don't see the perspective that ANs are proposing a new way to look at it. Perhaps it's familiar content, but different emotional appeal, etc.. There is a difference. And yes, just because an AN "thus" proposes it, doesn't mean it will be resonant. That doesn't necessarily make something moral or immoral. My theme here is that moral "sense" often grows over time or incorporates new things over time. It's like the Hegelian dialectic a bit.. It's nascent but through historical and other processes playing out and making its way known.
Quoting khaled
Same response.
Quoting khaled
I don't know where you get this idea about objectivity and extent. That itself is not objectively true, but maybe for khaled and for argumentation's sake. Extent just means that ethics has nuance, similar to law courts. So "free speech" isn't yelling "fire!" for no reason in a movie theater. It's speech.. Someone is saying it, but it is in a context. So tapping a lifeguard is technically "violating" the sleep of the lifeguard. You can say it is "controlling" the lifeguard for a split second of sleep. But is that meeting the threshold of "overly controlling pervasive parts of the lifeguard's very being and overlooking the lifeguard's negative experiences egregiously over a long period of time for an X cause"? I don't think tapping the lifeguard meets this. Certainly exposing people to the game/overcoming challenge game for a lifetime does.
So in fact, often an "extent" argument is really a "type" argument but with context or defining features which require context. So, "murder" is not "killing" for example, because of the context.
Quoting khaled
And yet it still doesn't mean it's right. Slavery in US took a Civil War and a hundred years of Jim Crow to get to some sort of semblance of civil equality. Yet civil rights activitists were saying things for years. Falling on deaf ears..
I can imagine a small minority of Roman reformers railing against the cruelty of the Colosseum and yet that went on for hundreds of years and the practice of brutal games and torture for entertainment itself probably for thousands.
Rather, it's because ANs think the people don't see the perspective. You have this constant idea that "if only people knew how bad it could get" that they would all think like you. It's just not true. Again, as I'm sure people who were once suicidal but got better and are now having kids could attest.
Most people know how bad it could get.
Quoting schopenhauer1
From the fact that a person can consistently hold that 30 years of slavery is better than eating a spider. Or vice versa. Without committing any fallacies.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You don't think this sure. Others might think it does. I don't think that life meets this threshold but you do. And neither of us is being inconsistent. Or do you think one of us is being inconsistent?
Point is, you have no logical argument that shows activity X meets the threshold and activity Y doesn't. Unless the activities only differ in extent (example, eating a spider vs eating 10 spiders), they will always be sufficiently different to allow any combination (X meets the threshold and Y doesn't. Or vice versa, or both or neither meet it)
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think you mean: Doesn't make it wrong. Agreed. But it's up to you to prove that it's right. And as long as you use extent arguments, you can't do so with any objectivity.
I think we are just rehashing the same arguments in different ways. I think for this segment we have pretty much said our responses and answers. My main idea here is that people don't have to immediately have an epiphany for ANs to be right. This goes back to the idea of limits versus options. I don't think people realize the limitations though you say it is realized. I think limitations are lived out and options are touted. I don't know if that makes sense to you. What is lived and what is summarized can be different. I had similar sentiments here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So Willy Wonka's "options" are Willy Wonka's limits of variations on work, homelessness, and if you really don't like it, suicide.
Not really.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you think there is an "objective way to phrase it"? And if there is how do you know it is yours?
There is no objective way to phrase it. Morality is mainly about emotional appeal. The logic can be consistent. The "soundness" of ethics is based on something akin to feelings such as empathy or sense of justice. If these feelings don't accord, then people don't see it as moral. Again, slavery, torture, might makes right, tribal warefare, etc. etc. etc.
You're in Japan.. Kamikaze was seen as the greatest honor. Was it moral? What once was seen as perfectly moral might be seen as excessively overlooking life.
That is to say there is no objective reasons someone should phrase it as you do. Now I’m confused. Sometimes you say
Quoting schopenhauer1
Which sounds subjectivist to me. And other times you say “slavery was as wrong back then as it is now”.
Which is it? Are there objective moral laws we can find? And if so what makes you think “having children is wrong” is one? If not, is the whole point of this thread nothing more than an emotional appeal?
My main argument is this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
That is to say, it is wrong, but we don't "realize it" until some contingent time in our historical development. It becomes wrong, almost in hindsight, after events play out. It is the capacity for our emotional awareness (some may call this "moral sense") to grow to incorporate more instances of fairness, justice, moral empathy, and sympathy.
And all ethical frameworks are appealing to some emotional alignment in some way in my estimation of it. So this ethical framework appealing to someone's emotions would be no different. Does it eventually accord with people's emotion of some sort.. whether it is a sense of fairness or justice or empathy or along those lines. Otherwise, ethics would simply be an algorithm arbitrarily chosen. Something is chosen for a reason and that reason almost always seems to go back to someone's feeling about it. Often those feelings are reinforced because the culture has taken on the moral sentiment.
If we were to formalize the moral sentiment, it would be to not harm unnecessarily and to not overlook someone's dignity. I have defined and discussed ad nauseum on this. We are talking more meta-ethics though at this point though, so out of the realm of normative. The moral sentiment is where the normative is grounded in. Otherwise, it is arbitrary and can be anything. Pick any X action, and if there is no moral sentiment, it is simply like any other action. But moral sentiment itself is not fixed, but rather gets refined and perhaps even "better" over time to some degree as history plays out. It might not even be better by being necessarily "innovative" as much as more understood in detail, or more people who adhere to it. The ideas are nascent in feelings of empathy and justice though.
How did you know it was wrong? That's exactly what I'm asking. What makes you think this is one of those things that are wrong but we simply don't realize it yet? Why can it not just be: It's not wrong?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Rather, not to cause too much unnecessary harm and not to overlook someone's dignity too much. It remains to be proven that birth fits the bill there in any objective sense.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I take it then you're some sort of objectivist but not a realist. There are right and wrong things, and they're constant. But what's right and wrong is determined purely by our sentiment, it's not a "fact of the world" the same way the gravitational laws are for example. If we were all masochists, then harming others would be good.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, agreed. I don't think people have fundamentally different moral compasses. What they disagree on is the facts of the world. Ask a Nazi and an SJW whether or not mass murder is justified. They'll both look at you horrified and say "Of course not!". Then you ask the Nazi how he justifies the holocaust. He replies "Murder? It's not murder, those aren't even human!" Bit of a graphic example.
My point is that this is one such disagreement. It is a disagreement about facts of the world. We both agree that a certain amount of imposition is too much. Except you, want to convince everyone that birth does objectively fit the bill of too much imposition. How can you do that with any objectivity?
I never claimed there was any "objectivity". You seem to ignore that. The case is made and people either find it compelling or not. I don't even know if it is a disagreement about facts of the world. It's a disagreement about a conclusion based on those facts. For example, the limitations of work/poverty/free ride/suicide along with the countless unforeseen contingent (but often known of) harms that impinge upon us are facts of the world. The conclusion is where one's perspective comes in. The AN says this is too much imposition and tries to convey this, usually through appealing to people's usual sense of justice or empathy, but as applied to these situations.
I actually do disagree with you that people have thought about it in the perspective of an AN. Rather, they may know the facts, but have not seen it as the imposition that it is. Now, if that is still not compelling after they are made aware of this perspective, so be it. I don't think just by understanding a perspective, everyone is thus convinced. Again, I have said this too. I don't think any ethical claim can magically do that for each person. It can slowly, over time, become more accepted by some, and then become part of a cultural norm, but I see AN akin to veganism in this regard. It is known, it is tolerated (or sometimes violently opposed) as a fringe perspective at this moment in time.
Do you disagree with bringing animals into the game? How about for food?
Separate but related issues. Humans, have self-reflection and greater awareness of actions, thoughts, and can use language. Moral awareness and capacity is had in humans. As far as humans bringing in animals for food, that can be a separate topic. I can understand certain claims for consistency of veganism and antinatalism, as they are often rooted in the same moral sentiments.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You know the problem with using those attributes as justification for poorer treatment though?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think veganism is a stepping stone to antinatalism. Might be more effective than trying to convince people to take the leap to antinatalism.
Is veganism not something you are able to accept yourself?