Is it wrong to have children?
Foreword: First of all, I´m definitely against murder.
Secondly: I use at the end of this article the concept of the "potential person" slightly different as R.M. Hare does. My statement is that ´potential person´ has no right to be born, but it has right not to be born. This article is from 2004, although I have made some recent, minor changes.
IS IT WRONG TO HAVE CHILDREN?
"Values are intangibles. They are, in the final analysis, things of the mind that have to do with the vision people have of "the good life" for themselves and their fellows."(Nicholas Rescher) [1]
The purpose of this article is to approach the ethical essence of creating and terminating life, with special emphasis on the question of justification of ‘life’ as an overriding basic value.
Life appears as a meta value in, for example, the biologism represented by sociobiologists, in most utilitarian theories and in the philosophical statements of R.M. Hare, among others. My objective is not to find historical reasons for this; rather, my purpose is to examine the underlying assumptions through which life has been derived as a value over non-life. The subject has been mentioned in passing in the discussions on abortion and euthanasia in the past few decades, but without focusing on the actual core of the issue: why should life be justified as a basic value over non-life? Or why should this not be done?
Some might find similarities between the view’s of Finnish thinker Pentti Linkola and the observations I present below. However, this represents a vicious false illusion. Pentti Linkola’s apocalypticism and utopia on the extinction of the human race is not an argument for the non-value - or anti-value - of life as such; it is rather a clear argument for the intrinsic value of life, even if this requires the extinction of one dominant species. Linkola’s views do not question life as an intrinsic value – or if they do, this implication is highly subtle.
Biological world-view and religious naturalism
"The time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized." (Edward O. Wilson [2])
When Edward O. Wilson published his works Sociobiology. The New Synthesis in 1975, it caused a storm of protests. Humanists, for one, criticized the sociobiological world-view. The most central and forcefully criticized argument in the publication was that the genetic, inherited differences in people are the primary reason behind cultural structures as well as the position of an individual in the social hierarchy, as opposed to random historical factors which were often presented as the cause.
On the other hand, a new sociobiological movement was formed and it inspired a field known as evolutionary psychology. The movement strove to portray itself as a scientific one, and rationalized many phenomena as products of natural selection and therefore as inherently good.
Sociobiology hit the mark on many accounts. It is likely that sociologists, psychologists and much of the whole (academic) world have not taken into account to a sufficient extent the role of genetic heredity in the human mental structures, in the political and cultural conventions of people, and in the very foundations of social structures as a whole.
Wilson’s leap from biology – or biological evolution – to ethics and the field of moral argumentation is nonetheless a daring one:
”...Many philosophers will respond by saying, But wait! What are you saying? Ethicists don’t need that kind of information. You really can’t pass from isto ought. You are not allowed to describe a genetic predisposition and suppose that because it is part of human nature, it is somehow transformed into an ethical precept. We must put moral reasoning in a special category, and use transcendental guidelines as required.
No, we do not have to put moral reasoning in a special category, and use transcendental premises, because the posing of the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy. For if ought is not is, what is? To translate isinto ought makes sense if we attend to the objective meaning of ethical precepts. They are very unlikely to be ethereal messages outside humanity awaiting revelation, or independent truth vibrating in a nonmaterial dimension of the mind. They are more likely to be physical products of the brain and culture. From the consilient perspective of the natural sciences, they are no more than principles of the social contract hardened into rules and dictates, the behavioral codes that members of a society fervently wish others to follow and are willing to accept themselves for the common good. Precepts are the extreme in a scale of agreements that range from casual assent to public sentiment to law to that part of the canon considered unalterable and sacred." [3]
To this, my response is that "ought" is the will, desire or intention of a being, and in this sense it truly "is". From this intention of a being, or from the normative attitude of ”should”, no obligation can be drawn. This is purely analytic. The issue is very simple if, generally speaking, the normative attitude of "ought" is a product of the brain and culture and it is required in order to maintain human life; the occurrence of this attitude is common amongst the living. No evolutionary process can even give a probable estimate as to why life would be a value over non-life. However, Wilson is admittedly correct in stating that, when assessing the possibilities and ethicality of actions, one must consider what is possible and what is not. But to assess life as a value over non-life, there is no material produced by the rational mind or empirical data (during, for example, the evolution of billions of years). Among evolutionary biologists, organized religion has often been seen as a contemporarily meaningful adaptation of natural selection. In the modern world, however, the popularity of religion has decreased. This has been seen both as an advantage and as a handicap; a fruitful phenomenon for the scientific world-view, but also the risk of falling into a meaningless spiritual void. Religions have responded to the spiritual needs of people and, even if they were to disappear, the need for sacred narratives remains. Wilson sees this both as a problem and as a challenge for the future.
"If the sacred narrative cannot be in the form of a religious cosmology, it will be taken from the material history of the universe and the human species. That trend is in no way debasing. The true evolutionary epic, retold as poetry, is as intrinsically ennobling as any religious epic. Material reality discovered by science already possesses more content and grandeur than all religious cosmologies combined. The continuity of the human line has been traced through a period of deep history a thousand times older than that conceived by the Western religions. Its study has brought new revelations of great moral importance. It has made us realize that Homo sapiens is far more than a congeries of tribes and races. We are a single gene pool from which individuals are drawn in each generation and into which they are dissolved the next generation, forever united as a species by heritage and a common future. Such are the conceptions, based on fact from which new intimations of immortality can be drawn and a new mythos evolved." [4]
The end of the last sentence is especially intriguing: “new mythos evolved.” However, regarding life as an axiomatic, dogmatic value can hardly be regarded as a new idea.
Unlike Wilson, Georg Henrik von Wright, as an analytical philosopher, does not render himself guilty of a naturalistic fallacy. His set of values is nonetheless similar to that of Wilson.
"The battle for survival – "the will to live", as Schopenhauer would say – is the natural biological basis for all valuation. In the animal world below human, this aim is simply "evaluative action". It is only on the human level that this action is given the form of grading from good to bad.
Individuals – even those that are not human – may also aim at the opposite goal: death and destruction, due to some other objective. When this is done to advance one’s own group, it is an act of self-sacrifice. This is not regarded as an irrational act. It may even be admired and accepted. However, struggling for the sort of goals that lead to the self-destruction of a species is irrational. Considering its biological basis, we also label it as perverted or unnatural. These are conceptual observations, not sets of values or scientific truths.
Instead, the conception of the natural conditions of human and animal survival is scientific – and so, therefore, is the view of what one can or cannot do to nature if existence is to be secured. In this sense, one can state that science explores the boundaries within which rational life is possible. Crossing the boundaries is purposeless self-destruction, an unnatural act of irrationality." [5]
According to von Wright, then, the biological – natural – basis for all valuation is the battle for survival, the will to live. With regard to life preservation, unfavourable action can be regarded as irrational in so far as this natural biological tendency to preserve life is rational, as defined. von Wright’s own value preferences are in accordance with general biological tendencies: in other words, in favour of preserving life.
Personally, I think so, like von Wright thought, that terminating human life is wrong. Euthanasia and suicide are different kind of cases. And in some cases, when there are no other options, killing people for self defence could be right, when you or other people are under threat of killing.
I also that I think abortion is right in early stages of pregnancy. I think as a matter of fact that it is a duty, that no one has to be born.
I hope, that we could address also this issue analytically and rationally no matter how primitive is the first emotional reaction to the that topic (abortion).
Life and non-life – abortion and euthanasia
Now, let us take a moment and touch upon one of the most interesting value ethical debates of the past few decades: the discussion on abortion.
In the last few decades, the justification of abortion has been one of the most central questions in value ethical discussions. Among the most noted abortion debate openers has been philosopher R.M. Hare. Hare’s basic premise is the principle of life preservation which cannot be breached with abortion. The concept of 'a potential person' lies at the core of Hare’s argumentation. He states that a foetus, or even a newly conceived egg cell, is a potential person, and therefore an abortion would be a crime against this potential human being.
At the same time, arguments have been made against euthanasia (and for it) by stating that life preservation is also a value overriding the will of an existing person – even in the event that this person personally wants euthanasia.
What is common to all these instances of debate is the underlying assumption of life as something desirable as such, and most of all, as a self-evident value.
According to Hare, our duty – assuming that we are happy that our lives have not been terminated at the foetus stage – is not to terminate the life of a "potential person" living to see its foetal stage. [6]
Not taking a stand on whether or not Hare abuses the concept of "duty", one must take into account three important aspects.
1. The assumption that we are happy to be alive at the moment does certainly not cover all living individuals, even if most living individuals consider their life to be a positive thing.
2. Even if happiness about life were to be a universal viewpoint, it cannot be used as an argument in concluding whether or not abortion would have been a better choice with regard to happiness. Hence, one cannot know whether it is better to bethan not to be.
3. A noteworthy aspect is also the fact that bringing about life – which in this case, if successful, means creating a self-conscious human being, a person – does not mean merely bringing about life. It is somewhat rational to assume that a forthcoming conscious person will come to die one day. Furthermore, whether or not this is a shift back to the state or non-state which prevailed before the person, there is no clear knowledge of the nature of this shift beyond the fact that the human being ceases to exist as a biological organism. Bringing about life is also a necessary condition for its ending – or termination.
Hare’s argument therefore is that life is likely to be a better state of affairs than the lack thereof. What a bold and peculiar argument! And one that should be used to justify obligation towards a potentially forthcoming individual.
Having said that, it is somewhat evident that our naturalistic attitude drives us to investigate the questions of existence in a highly biocentric manner, with an emphasis on the (presumed) value of life and by perhaps regarding it as a “given value.” And yet: why has this reasoning not been taken to its natural conclusion by comparing the relation of life and non-life and the arguments and circumstances in which it is justified to value one over the other, if either?
In the viewpoint represented by Hare, sperm is not yet a potential person – even though it can be seen as one if potentiality is defined in a broad sense. Therefore, it does not possess the rights of a potential person. Following Hare’s model, one does not have the duty of “giving” life to the sperm. But what about the right to do so? If a human being does not have the duty of giving life to sperm in the form of human life, does one have the right to do so? Hare does not approach this question.
As stated, a sperm is not a potential person in the sense discussed by Hare, and therefore our related actions are not directed at a person or a potential person. In other words, our actions towards the sperm are relatively insignificant to it.
Having a child is an action in which decisions are made concerning an individual’s life. The act of having a child has an object, a potentially forthcoming human being. This individual should not be perceived as a person, however.
My purpose is not to imply that the object as a person exists at the moment of conception, but having a child affects an individual’s life: the object of this action is a child to be born, and that child usually fulfils the criteria of a person. Therefore, it can be concluded that the act of having a child has an object, but this object is not a person at the moment of conception.
Hare’s hypothesis is that life itself is a value, the creation of which holds no ethical problems, whereas the prevention and especially termination thereof holds several.
Biocentrism is of course our naturalistic and natural attitude which has developed during evolution, but it does not imply anything about values as such.
Let us compare this argument with another question on existence, the termination of life.
Let us assume that an adult human being seems to outsiders in their right minds to be willing to die and to clearly and unambiguously state “Kill me!” Is this sufficient justification for killing this human being?
Juridically surely not, but what about ethically?
In my opinion, NO. I believe that a vast majority of people hopefully agrees with my view (even though this is no basis for justifying the value of the action).
Nonetheless, in the above example case, the actor has more information on the tendencies of the object of the action than in the example on bringing about life – i.e. in the active deed that aims at creating a new human being, a child. Hence, there is some information available on the desires and intentions of the object of "mercy killing". As for the object of conception, there is no information available on the desires of the (forthcoming) individual. This is also true in the likely case of the (intended) object of the action not existing yet. The fact that it is impossible to have this information when creating new life (having a child) does not change our diverging epistemic attitudes in any way.
Hence, we cannot know whether it is better to be than not to be.
Is there an object in the act of having a child (in this context, let us forget the existing environment, possible future relatives, the social security system, society)? Certainly: the sperm and the egg cell. But is there an objectas a person when having a child (not yet at the conception stage) – such as a three-year-old child usually is – for example? My claim is that there is one.
The basic argument is as follows:we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence of another individual or – to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.
Such arguments have been made concerning the act of having a child that one cannot affect something that does not exist. Is this argument justified?
An example
When planning a statue portraying American rock star Bruce Springsteen, the statue does not exist at the moment of planning. Were the statue project to become successful, however, the statue is the object of the action (or one of them). The statue existed as an object, even if not as an actual and existing one, as early as the brainstorming and planning stage. The participants and executors of the statue project can be justly seen as actors responsible for the execution and act of acquiring the statue. The situation is fully analogous to that of knowingly having a child.
It is true that the individual does not exist at the moment of conception. The individual also does not exist without the act of conception. Therefore, even though the act of conception is the reason or one of the crucial reasons as to why an individual, fulfilling the requirements of a person, will later be born, this person does not exist at the time of the act – in fact, not even as a potential person (Hare). Can we therefore talk about "true causation"? (Note: if we cannot talk about "true causation", the oft-mentioned concern about future generations and, above all, the moral claim to do something for a better life for the yet unborn future generations – actions to be taken to preserve the Earth in a more viable state, perhaps – is completely absurd.)
My argument is that Hare’s viewpoint is unfounded.
The object of the action is a potentially forthcoming person, in similar manner to sperm and an egg cell. Even though it is a fact that, unlike the egg cell and the sperm that exist at the moment of executing the act – the attempt to have a child – this person does not exist nor will s/he perhaps ever exist (the conception may not be successful, a miscarriage may take place, or other complications may prevent childbirth),the act is to be assessed in connection with the object of the act (the forthcoming human being) and the potential person.
However, as the person materializes, the individuals behind the act of conception hold central roles in the creation chain of the person. These individuals are therefore, in both good and bad, responsible for the emergence of a certain person.
Utilitarianism and the best possible world
Let us conduct a thought experiment and assume that life in general is a better choice for a foetus or sperm than non-life. Let us further assume that this is not true in all cases. If we assume, however, that there is a right – in some cases even a duty – to produce human life, what results is suffering for at least a certain part of humankind. If this is accepted in the name of the "common good" or greater total benefit, the individuals who have come here to suffer have no intrinsic value – at least not in the Kantian sense. In other words, they are used as instruments for a greater end. Consequently, if we stick to the utilitarian viewpoint, a “person” is no normative absolute that cannot be overstepped. The utilitarian outlook expressly causes that a ”person” – in practice, “persons” – ought to be used as instruments for the greater good. This can surely be – or at least ought to be – self-evident to Hare as well.
The inevitable unwanted consequences of actions – the side effects – are an unavoidable consequence of life. This results in a situation where some people will suffer fates that are in no way good or enjoyable. The practical truth is that some people will get themselves used as “test animals” in discharge chamber experiments, or raped by wolfhounds, to mention just a few examples. In other words: we know that creating life inevitably results in unwanted consequences.
Surely, one can state that non-life can be an even worse fate than the two examples above. If this were to be true, it might not result in the duty of producing as much life for the Earth as possible, but it would undoubtedly be a supererogatory – a Mother Theresa-like – act. Therefore, it is a considerably immoral deed for social workers or anyone else to persuade potential heroin addict mothers to use contraception or even to terminate their pregnancies! The epistemic state of people being as it is, we cannot plead to the value of creating life with such speculative arguments.
What about the counterargument to the fact that the same applies in reverse? We cannot regard furnaces and brain pressure test chambers as barriers to banning life creation, as it is also speculative to assume that these phenomena are worse than non-life.
What is the correct answer to the foregoing? One attempted answer could be this: by definition, non-life does not enable any experiencing and therefore also not suffering. To this argument, one can of course comment that no definition given by some creature tells anything about the matter as such. This is surely true, but it is equally true that this is not a case of definition randomly given by some local creature: rather, this refers to the fact that it is a pure analytic truth that non-life cannot contain experiencing, as experiencing is logically enabled by life and life only.
It can be further argued that what we call non-life is in fact not that: it is possible that before turning into a human person, there is an entity that truly lives but in a form that is not evident to humans. Consequently, one could express the same argument that this non-human life ”can be an even worse fate than the two previously mentioned fates” (those of a test animal in a brain pressure chamber and the rape victim of a wolfhound). This is a very speculative and perhaps unrealistic statement, but I do not deny that this would in theory be possible, nor do I deny the characteristic similarity of the counterexamples I have presented.
Finally, what can we say about this side of the matter? The answer is strikingly clear. Even if it was the case that we cannot say anything about the supremacy of life or non-life – even in the case that all the world’s current and forthcoming human beings were to experience the fate of those two! – there is an important, fundamental difference between having a child and not having one (as this is finally the focal issue here): not having a child leaves things as they were. Let us assume that unit A is making a decision on whether or not to have a child.
In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad. Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad.
This cannot be it!
In terms of common sense, the conclusions we have reached are absolutely absurd.
The gut feeling of many is: ”This cannot be it!” This reaction is fully understandable. This is also the case with the undersigned. Having said that, this natural reaction cannot be regarded as a valid argument, be it as regrettable as it may.
Let us give Pentti Linkola another chance, however:
"It is logically absurd that a part – private life – is important and meaningful, but the whole – life in its entirety – is insignificant and dispensable". [7]
The fact that private life is important and meaningful, which is also my point of view, is a state of affairs (or, to be more precise, the state of affairs affecting as the viewpoint of a certain creature), which is in relation to a state of affairs within another sphere of life. Regarding these values as ”good” is in some cases of course rational, but not unambiguously logical as such. One could even argue that life in general has value over non-life. Rational reasoning does not give any support to this argument.
A Linkola-spirited argument to this could be: "Only what is can have value. Non-life cannot have value."
A possible response could be: "Maybe so, but similarly only what is can have anti-value."
And I mean this so, that suffering, which would be too well-known for practically everyone, will appear at least in some cases as an antivalue, very negative and sometimes as extremely bad things. Something to really avoid. Things that I have touched on in this article.
However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person.
Finally, nobody will know is it better for human being born into this world or not. However, we know that if child born into this world, her/his life could be painful, perhaps she/he will suffer really hard. And we also know that we make the decision for her/his life, the unborn child not having any kind of veto-prevention to ignition of her/his life, which she/he only has to live.
These are sufficient arguments not to reproduce, not to create human life in to this world.
References
1 Rescher, Introduction to Value Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1969, 1-19
2 Wilson 1975, 562
3 Wilson 1998, 249-250
4 Wilson 1998, 265
5 von Wright 1992, 194-195
6 Hare, Abortion and the Golden Rule. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4, 1975, 201-222
7 Linkola 1989, 168
Literature
Rescher, Nicholas, Introduction to Value Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1969, 1-19.
Wilson, Edward O., Sociobiology. The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Belknap 1975.
Wilson, Edward O., CONSILIENCE. The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1998.
Hare, R.M., Abortion and the Golden Rule. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4, 1975, 201-222.
Published also: Hare, R.M., Essays on Bioethics. New York, Clarendon Press Oxford 1993.
von Wright, Georg Henrik, Minervan pöllö: esseitä vuosilta 1987-1991. Helsinki, Otava 1992.
von Wright, G.H, Vetenskapen och förnuftet. Ett försök till orientering. Helsinki, Söderström 1986.
Linkola, Pentti, Johdatus 1990-luvun ajatteluun. Porvoo, WSOY 1989.
Secondly: I use at the end of this article the concept of the "potential person" slightly different as R.M. Hare does. My statement is that ´potential person´ has no right to be born, but it has right not to be born. This article is from 2004, although I have made some recent, minor changes.
IS IT WRONG TO HAVE CHILDREN?
"Values are intangibles. They are, in the final analysis, things of the mind that have to do with the vision people have of "the good life" for themselves and their fellows."(Nicholas Rescher) [1]
The purpose of this article is to approach the ethical essence of creating and terminating life, with special emphasis on the question of justification of ‘life’ as an overriding basic value.
Life appears as a meta value in, for example, the biologism represented by sociobiologists, in most utilitarian theories and in the philosophical statements of R.M. Hare, among others. My objective is not to find historical reasons for this; rather, my purpose is to examine the underlying assumptions through which life has been derived as a value over non-life. The subject has been mentioned in passing in the discussions on abortion and euthanasia in the past few decades, but without focusing on the actual core of the issue: why should life be justified as a basic value over non-life? Or why should this not be done?
Some might find similarities between the view’s of Finnish thinker Pentti Linkola and the observations I present below. However, this represents a vicious false illusion. Pentti Linkola’s apocalypticism and utopia on the extinction of the human race is not an argument for the non-value - or anti-value - of life as such; it is rather a clear argument for the intrinsic value of life, even if this requires the extinction of one dominant species. Linkola’s views do not question life as an intrinsic value – or if they do, this implication is highly subtle.
Biological world-view and religious naturalism
"The time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized." (Edward O. Wilson [2])
When Edward O. Wilson published his works Sociobiology. The New Synthesis in 1975, it caused a storm of protests. Humanists, for one, criticized the sociobiological world-view. The most central and forcefully criticized argument in the publication was that the genetic, inherited differences in people are the primary reason behind cultural structures as well as the position of an individual in the social hierarchy, as opposed to random historical factors which were often presented as the cause.
On the other hand, a new sociobiological movement was formed and it inspired a field known as evolutionary psychology. The movement strove to portray itself as a scientific one, and rationalized many phenomena as products of natural selection and therefore as inherently good.
Sociobiology hit the mark on many accounts. It is likely that sociologists, psychologists and much of the whole (academic) world have not taken into account to a sufficient extent the role of genetic heredity in the human mental structures, in the political and cultural conventions of people, and in the very foundations of social structures as a whole.
Wilson’s leap from biology – or biological evolution – to ethics and the field of moral argumentation is nonetheless a daring one:
”...Many philosophers will respond by saying, But wait! What are you saying? Ethicists don’t need that kind of information. You really can’t pass from isto ought. You are not allowed to describe a genetic predisposition and suppose that because it is part of human nature, it is somehow transformed into an ethical precept. We must put moral reasoning in a special category, and use transcendental guidelines as required.
No, we do not have to put moral reasoning in a special category, and use transcendental premises, because the posing of the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy. For if ought is not is, what is? To translate isinto ought makes sense if we attend to the objective meaning of ethical precepts. They are very unlikely to be ethereal messages outside humanity awaiting revelation, or independent truth vibrating in a nonmaterial dimension of the mind. They are more likely to be physical products of the brain and culture. From the consilient perspective of the natural sciences, they are no more than principles of the social contract hardened into rules and dictates, the behavioral codes that members of a society fervently wish others to follow and are willing to accept themselves for the common good. Precepts are the extreme in a scale of agreements that range from casual assent to public sentiment to law to that part of the canon considered unalterable and sacred." [3]
To this, my response is that "ought" is the will, desire or intention of a being, and in this sense it truly "is". From this intention of a being, or from the normative attitude of ”should”, no obligation can be drawn. This is purely analytic. The issue is very simple if, generally speaking, the normative attitude of "ought" is a product of the brain and culture and it is required in order to maintain human life; the occurrence of this attitude is common amongst the living. No evolutionary process can even give a probable estimate as to why life would be a value over non-life. However, Wilson is admittedly correct in stating that, when assessing the possibilities and ethicality of actions, one must consider what is possible and what is not. But to assess life as a value over non-life, there is no material produced by the rational mind or empirical data (during, for example, the evolution of billions of years). Among evolutionary biologists, organized religion has often been seen as a contemporarily meaningful adaptation of natural selection. In the modern world, however, the popularity of religion has decreased. This has been seen both as an advantage and as a handicap; a fruitful phenomenon for the scientific world-view, but also the risk of falling into a meaningless spiritual void. Religions have responded to the spiritual needs of people and, even if they were to disappear, the need for sacred narratives remains. Wilson sees this both as a problem and as a challenge for the future.
"If the sacred narrative cannot be in the form of a religious cosmology, it will be taken from the material history of the universe and the human species. That trend is in no way debasing. The true evolutionary epic, retold as poetry, is as intrinsically ennobling as any religious epic. Material reality discovered by science already possesses more content and grandeur than all religious cosmologies combined. The continuity of the human line has been traced through a period of deep history a thousand times older than that conceived by the Western religions. Its study has brought new revelations of great moral importance. It has made us realize that Homo sapiens is far more than a congeries of tribes and races. We are a single gene pool from which individuals are drawn in each generation and into which they are dissolved the next generation, forever united as a species by heritage and a common future. Such are the conceptions, based on fact from which new intimations of immortality can be drawn and a new mythos evolved." [4]
The end of the last sentence is especially intriguing: “new mythos evolved.” However, regarding life as an axiomatic, dogmatic value can hardly be regarded as a new idea.
Unlike Wilson, Georg Henrik von Wright, as an analytical philosopher, does not render himself guilty of a naturalistic fallacy. His set of values is nonetheless similar to that of Wilson.
"The battle for survival – "the will to live", as Schopenhauer would say – is the natural biological basis for all valuation. In the animal world below human, this aim is simply "evaluative action". It is only on the human level that this action is given the form of grading from good to bad.
Individuals – even those that are not human – may also aim at the opposite goal: death and destruction, due to some other objective. When this is done to advance one’s own group, it is an act of self-sacrifice. This is not regarded as an irrational act. It may even be admired and accepted. However, struggling for the sort of goals that lead to the self-destruction of a species is irrational. Considering its biological basis, we also label it as perverted or unnatural. These are conceptual observations, not sets of values or scientific truths.
Instead, the conception of the natural conditions of human and animal survival is scientific – and so, therefore, is the view of what one can or cannot do to nature if existence is to be secured. In this sense, one can state that science explores the boundaries within which rational life is possible. Crossing the boundaries is purposeless self-destruction, an unnatural act of irrationality." [5]
According to von Wright, then, the biological – natural – basis for all valuation is the battle for survival, the will to live. With regard to life preservation, unfavourable action can be regarded as irrational in so far as this natural biological tendency to preserve life is rational, as defined. von Wright’s own value preferences are in accordance with general biological tendencies: in other words, in favour of preserving life.
Personally, I think so, like von Wright thought, that terminating human life is wrong. Euthanasia and suicide are different kind of cases. And in some cases, when there are no other options, killing people for self defence could be right, when you or other people are under threat of killing.
I also that I think abortion is right in early stages of pregnancy. I think as a matter of fact that it is a duty, that no one has to be born.
I hope, that we could address also this issue analytically and rationally no matter how primitive is the first emotional reaction to the that topic (abortion).
Life and non-life – abortion and euthanasia
Now, let us take a moment and touch upon one of the most interesting value ethical debates of the past few decades: the discussion on abortion.
In the last few decades, the justification of abortion has been one of the most central questions in value ethical discussions. Among the most noted abortion debate openers has been philosopher R.M. Hare. Hare’s basic premise is the principle of life preservation which cannot be breached with abortion. The concept of 'a potential person' lies at the core of Hare’s argumentation. He states that a foetus, or even a newly conceived egg cell, is a potential person, and therefore an abortion would be a crime against this potential human being.
At the same time, arguments have been made against euthanasia (and for it) by stating that life preservation is also a value overriding the will of an existing person – even in the event that this person personally wants euthanasia.
What is common to all these instances of debate is the underlying assumption of life as something desirable as such, and most of all, as a self-evident value.
According to Hare, our duty – assuming that we are happy that our lives have not been terminated at the foetus stage – is not to terminate the life of a "potential person" living to see its foetal stage. [6]
Not taking a stand on whether or not Hare abuses the concept of "duty", one must take into account three important aspects.
1. The assumption that we are happy to be alive at the moment does certainly not cover all living individuals, even if most living individuals consider their life to be a positive thing.
2. Even if happiness about life were to be a universal viewpoint, it cannot be used as an argument in concluding whether or not abortion would have been a better choice with regard to happiness. Hence, one cannot know whether it is better to bethan not to be.
3. A noteworthy aspect is also the fact that bringing about life – which in this case, if successful, means creating a self-conscious human being, a person – does not mean merely bringing about life. It is somewhat rational to assume that a forthcoming conscious person will come to die one day. Furthermore, whether or not this is a shift back to the state or non-state which prevailed before the person, there is no clear knowledge of the nature of this shift beyond the fact that the human being ceases to exist as a biological organism. Bringing about life is also a necessary condition for its ending – or termination.
Hare’s argument therefore is that life is likely to be a better state of affairs than the lack thereof. What a bold and peculiar argument! And one that should be used to justify obligation towards a potentially forthcoming individual.
Having said that, it is somewhat evident that our naturalistic attitude drives us to investigate the questions of existence in a highly biocentric manner, with an emphasis on the (presumed) value of life and by perhaps regarding it as a “given value.” And yet: why has this reasoning not been taken to its natural conclusion by comparing the relation of life and non-life and the arguments and circumstances in which it is justified to value one over the other, if either?
In the viewpoint represented by Hare, sperm is not yet a potential person – even though it can be seen as one if potentiality is defined in a broad sense. Therefore, it does not possess the rights of a potential person. Following Hare’s model, one does not have the duty of “giving” life to the sperm. But what about the right to do so? If a human being does not have the duty of giving life to sperm in the form of human life, does one have the right to do so? Hare does not approach this question.
As stated, a sperm is not a potential person in the sense discussed by Hare, and therefore our related actions are not directed at a person or a potential person. In other words, our actions towards the sperm are relatively insignificant to it.
Having a child is an action in which decisions are made concerning an individual’s life. The act of having a child has an object, a potentially forthcoming human being. This individual should not be perceived as a person, however.
My purpose is not to imply that the object as a person exists at the moment of conception, but having a child affects an individual’s life: the object of this action is a child to be born, and that child usually fulfils the criteria of a person. Therefore, it can be concluded that the act of having a child has an object, but this object is not a person at the moment of conception.
Hare’s hypothesis is that life itself is a value, the creation of which holds no ethical problems, whereas the prevention and especially termination thereof holds several.
Biocentrism is of course our naturalistic and natural attitude which has developed during evolution, but it does not imply anything about values as such.
Let us compare this argument with another question on existence, the termination of life.
Let us assume that an adult human being seems to outsiders in their right minds to be willing to die and to clearly and unambiguously state “Kill me!” Is this sufficient justification for killing this human being?
Juridically surely not, but what about ethically?
In my opinion, NO. I believe that a vast majority of people hopefully agrees with my view (even though this is no basis for justifying the value of the action).
Nonetheless, in the above example case, the actor has more information on the tendencies of the object of the action than in the example on bringing about life – i.e. in the active deed that aims at creating a new human being, a child. Hence, there is some information available on the desires and intentions of the object of "mercy killing". As for the object of conception, there is no information available on the desires of the (forthcoming) individual. This is also true in the likely case of the (intended) object of the action not existing yet. The fact that it is impossible to have this information when creating new life (having a child) does not change our diverging epistemic attitudes in any way.
Hence, we cannot know whether it is better to be than not to be.
Is there an object in the act of having a child (in this context, let us forget the existing environment, possible future relatives, the social security system, society)? Certainly: the sperm and the egg cell. But is there an objectas a person when having a child (not yet at the conception stage) – such as a three-year-old child usually is – for example? My claim is that there is one.
The basic argument is as follows:we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence of another individual or – to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.
Such arguments have been made concerning the act of having a child that one cannot affect something that does not exist. Is this argument justified?
An example
When planning a statue portraying American rock star Bruce Springsteen, the statue does not exist at the moment of planning. Were the statue project to become successful, however, the statue is the object of the action (or one of them). The statue existed as an object, even if not as an actual and existing one, as early as the brainstorming and planning stage. The participants and executors of the statue project can be justly seen as actors responsible for the execution and act of acquiring the statue. The situation is fully analogous to that of knowingly having a child.
It is true that the individual does not exist at the moment of conception. The individual also does not exist without the act of conception. Therefore, even though the act of conception is the reason or one of the crucial reasons as to why an individual, fulfilling the requirements of a person, will later be born, this person does not exist at the time of the act – in fact, not even as a potential person (Hare). Can we therefore talk about "true causation"? (Note: if we cannot talk about "true causation", the oft-mentioned concern about future generations and, above all, the moral claim to do something for a better life for the yet unborn future generations – actions to be taken to preserve the Earth in a more viable state, perhaps – is completely absurd.)
My argument is that Hare’s viewpoint is unfounded.
The object of the action is a potentially forthcoming person, in similar manner to sperm and an egg cell. Even though it is a fact that, unlike the egg cell and the sperm that exist at the moment of executing the act – the attempt to have a child – this person does not exist nor will s/he perhaps ever exist (the conception may not be successful, a miscarriage may take place, or other complications may prevent childbirth),the act is to be assessed in connection with the object of the act (the forthcoming human being) and the potential person.
However, as the person materializes, the individuals behind the act of conception hold central roles in the creation chain of the person. These individuals are therefore, in both good and bad, responsible for the emergence of a certain person.
Utilitarianism and the best possible world
Let us conduct a thought experiment and assume that life in general is a better choice for a foetus or sperm than non-life. Let us further assume that this is not true in all cases. If we assume, however, that there is a right – in some cases even a duty – to produce human life, what results is suffering for at least a certain part of humankind. If this is accepted in the name of the "common good" or greater total benefit, the individuals who have come here to suffer have no intrinsic value – at least not in the Kantian sense. In other words, they are used as instruments for a greater end. Consequently, if we stick to the utilitarian viewpoint, a “person” is no normative absolute that cannot be overstepped. The utilitarian outlook expressly causes that a ”person” – in practice, “persons” – ought to be used as instruments for the greater good. This can surely be – or at least ought to be – self-evident to Hare as well.
The inevitable unwanted consequences of actions – the side effects – are an unavoidable consequence of life. This results in a situation where some people will suffer fates that are in no way good or enjoyable. The practical truth is that some people will get themselves used as “test animals” in discharge chamber experiments, or raped by wolfhounds, to mention just a few examples. In other words: we know that creating life inevitably results in unwanted consequences.
Surely, one can state that non-life can be an even worse fate than the two examples above. If this were to be true, it might not result in the duty of producing as much life for the Earth as possible, but it would undoubtedly be a supererogatory – a Mother Theresa-like – act. Therefore, it is a considerably immoral deed for social workers or anyone else to persuade potential heroin addict mothers to use contraception or even to terminate their pregnancies! The epistemic state of people being as it is, we cannot plead to the value of creating life with such speculative arguments.
What about the counterargument to the fact that the same applies in reverse? We cannot regard furnaces and brain pressure test chambers as barriers to banning life creation, as it is also speculative to assume that these phenomena are worse than non-life.
What is the correct answer to the foregoing? One attempted answer could be this: by definition, non-life does not enable any experiencing and therefore also not suffering. To this argument, one can of course comment that no definition given by some creature tells anything about the matter as such. This is surely true, but it is equally true that this is not a case of definition randomly given by some local creature: rather, this refers to the fact that it is a pure analytic truth that non-life cannot contain experiencing, as experiencing is logically enabled by life and life only.
It can be further argued that what we call non-life is in fact not that: it is possible that before turning into a human person, there is an entity that truly lives but in a form that is not evident to humans. Consequently, one could express the same argument that this non-human life ”can be an even worse fate than the two previously mentioned fates” (those of a test animal in a brain pressure chamber and the rape victim of a wolfhound). This is a very speculative and perhaps unrealistic statement, but I do not deny that this would in theory be possible, nor do I deny the characteristic similarity of the counterexamples I have presented.
Finally, what can we say about this side of the matter? The answer is strikingly clear. Even if it was the case that we cannot say anything about the supremacy of life or non-life – even in the case that all the world’s current and forthcoming human beings were to experience the fate of those two! – there is an important, fundamental difference between having a child and not having one (as this is finally the focal issue here): not having a child leaves things as they were. Let us assume that unit A is making a decision on whether or not to have a child.
In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad. Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad.
This cannot be it!
In terms of common sense, the conclusions we have reached are absolutely absurd.
The gut feeling of many is: ”This cannot be it!” This reaction is fully understandable. This is also the case with the undersigned. Having said that, this natural reaction cannot be regarded as a valid argument, be it as regrettable as it may.
Let us give Pentti Linkola another chance, however:
"It is logically absurd that a part – private life – is important and meaningful, but the whole – life in its entirety – is insignificant and dispensable". [7]
The fact that private life is important and meaningful, which is also my point of view, is a state of affairs (or, to be more precise, the state of affairs affecting as the viewpoint of a certain creature), which is in relation to a state of affairs within another sphere of life. Regarding these values as ”good” is in some cases of course rational, but not unambiguously logical as such. One could even argue that life in general has value over non-life. Rational reasoning does not give any support to this argument.
A Linkola-spirited argument to this could be: "Only what is can have value. Non-life cannot have value."
A possible response could be: "Maybe so, but similarly only what is can have anti-value."
And I mean this so, that suffering, which would be too well-known for practically everyone, will appear at least in some cases as an antivalue, very negative and sometimes as extremely bad things. Something to really avoid. Things that I have touched on in this article.
However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person.
Finally, nobody will know is it better for human being born into this world or not. However, we know that if child born into this world, her/his life could be painful, perhaps she/he will suffer really hard. And we also know that we make the decision for her/his life, the unborn child not having any kind of veto-prevention to ignition of her/his life, which she/he only has to live.
These are sufficient arguments not to reproduce, not to create human life in to this world.
References
1 Rescher, Introduction to Value Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1969, 1-19
2 Wilson 1975, 562
3 Wilson 1998, 249-250
4 Wilson 1998, 265
5 von Wright 1992, 194-195
6 Hare, Abortion and the Golden Rule. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4, 1975, 201-222
7 Linkola 1989, 168
Literature
Rescher, Nicholas, Introduction to Value Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1969, 1-19.
Wilson, Edward O., Sociobiology. The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Belknap 1975.
Wilson, Edward O., CONSILIENCE. The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1998.
Hare, R.M., Abortion and the Golden Rule. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4, 1975, 201-222.
Published also: Hare, R.M., Essays on Bioethics. New York, Clarendon Press Oxford 1993.
von Wright, Georg Henrik, Minervan pöllö: esseitä vuosilta 1987-1991. Helsinki, Otava 1992.
von Wright, G.H, Vetenskapen och förnuftet. Ett försök till orientering. Helsinki, Söderström 1986.
Linkola, Pentti, Johdatus 1990-luvun ajatteluun. Porvoo, WSOY 1989.
Comments (286)
No. Neither is not to. It's just a matter of choice.Nothing else. I can't see any complexity here.
Sorry, I missed the arguments? What argument? Suffering isn’t necessarily ‘negative’ either. It is ephemeral and allows learning. Learning is ‘suffering’ to some degree.
Another point …
Quoting Antinatalist
That is just plain nonsense.
The glaringly obvious point that needs to be addressed is what ‘good’ means and what ‘wrong’ means. Also, what exactly is ‘suffering’ and given that there is an underlying idea that life is only worth living if it is pleasure for the most part seems a bit strange.
Next thing that bothered me is comparing apples with oranges. Saying a statue is like a creating a baby? Is a baby a piece of art now. That just doesn’t work. Analogies are not particularly helpful here I feel.
Perhaps the main thrust of the problem is actually about ‘meaning’. Does life have meaning? That is, as far as I can tell, a redundant question. Value is an item of a spaciotemporal being. Value is how we navigate the world. The negative aspects of life hit harder than then positive aspects of life because this is how we have evolved to survive. There is no ‘better’ or ‘worse’ in this, it is just how things are.
Note: I don’t really find the political wrangling that involves abortion or euthanasia to be very interesting either (it’s mainly something used by ‘religious’ and ‘non-religious’). Life itself is merely a parcelling of certain aspects of human experience. It is in and of itself a concept that lacks rigorous delineation from its absence. The moral issues surrounding this are always going involve opposing views because we are morally driven creatures. If everyone agreed when and if a human life has value then I’d regard that as the end of humanity (but we wouldn’t know it).
Interesting article. I going to check it out later on with more concentration.
Yes, absolutely. It is even a selfish act having children in nowadays when everything is surrounded to violence and hate. If it is not worthy to have kids when you are a normal/regular person imagine when you are a theft or a drug dependent. These kind of people shall not be able to have the right of having kids at all.
Antinatalism, however, doesn't hold water if we consider the fact that the majority don't suicide.
A just intention, the wisdom and ability to make that intention come about, and the intended outcome.
Lets apply this to having children:
Just intention
A just intention seems to apply to many future parents, as they often have the happiness of their child as their intention.
Some parents may have selfish intentions, and see children as a means to a legacy, to be taken care of at old age, or to simply fulfill an irrational instinctual desire.
Others still may claim that they have children because without children the human race would die out. This seems disingenuous to me, and is probably a way to mask a more selfish intention.
Then there are parents whose intentions are unjust and intentionally harmful. For them having children is unquestionably an immoral act.
Wisdom and ability to make the just intention come about
While some parents may be more wise and capable than others, even the most wise, capable and well-intentioned parents cannot guarantee the well-being of their child.
The future life of a child is something we are almost entirely ignorant of. The child could become happy, or it could become miserable. It could succeed on the path laid out for it, or fail completely. Additionally, it is affected by many factors that are not within the parents' control, regardless of their wisdom or intentions.
This is a prerequisite that I believe the act of having children cannot fulfill. It is simply for a large part out of the parents' control whether their intentions, just as they may be, come about in the way they have envisioned.
The intended outcome
Without the intended outcome, it cannot be said an act is moral.
The intended outcome for a just intention concerning child birth is a happy child - or at least a child that believes their life is worth living and the good outweighs the bad.
This seems to be the case often enough. So we can state that despite a lack of wisdom and capabilities of the parents to guarantee a good outcome, their just intention can and does come about in spite of this.
Conclusion
What are we left with then?
As I said, my opinion is that the prerequisite of wisdom and capability to make the just intention come about cannot be fulfilled for the act of having children.
This does not automatically make the act of having children immoral, though. It only makes it one that is ignorant.
Hm.. looks like you're scot-free as of now, but we'll be watching. :grin:
Is it moral to have children? Let's for sake of example, compare a child to say.. something that could do good, do bad, experience pleasure, or immense pain. We arrive at something of a crossroads that yes demands a belief either in disbelief or perhaps one of the greater concepts those who came before held that now escapes the lot of us. So, let's use an offhand example, is making a brick or block of stone for sale moral? After all someone could use it to build a house to house orphans. Or, they could use it to beat a hardworking man to death and take his last morsel thus creating orphans. I suppose there has to be some sort of plan, oversight, or idea that is reasonably likely to occur or not to occur before one can say what is 'moral' or not.
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't think it is wrong to have children.
The action in itself is neither right or wrong whatever your intentions may be.
I say this because I think that a couple can choose to have no children or have many children, the right or wrong is decided by the awareness of the couple. Even if the couple are poor and they choose to have children whom they cannot support but they don't have awareness then they are not wrong.(I won't say that they are right but they are not wrong)
If they are aware that they cannot support their child and still have one, for whatever reason, then they are wrong.
At the very least, you claim that it is wrong the have children if you cannot take care of them financially and emotionally. I argue that it is wrong only when you are aware of that but still do so. Even if you were forced to have a child knowing you can't care for him/her, you would still be wrong but you would be pardoned a little, like in Buddhism you can lie to save a life, you would be rewarded for saving a life but also punished to lying, the same thing.
The basic argument is as follows: we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence of another individual or – to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.
And one foundation of this argument: In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad. Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad.
Quoting I like sushi
Arguments have been made concerning the act of having a child that one cannot affect something that does not exist. That´s why there is the Bruce Springsteen -statue example. Quoting I like sushi
Of course there could not be objective standards for the ´good´ or ´wrong´ (or ´bad´ or ´right´).
However, what is ´bad´ or that is ´wrong´ easier to see than what is ´good´ or what is ´right´.
Right after I have to admit that we can not construct objective moral claims for what we should not to do.
At the chapter Utilitarianism and the best possible world I said The practical truth is that some people will get themselves used as “test animals” in discharge chamber experiments, or raped by wolfhounds, to mention just a few examples. In other words: we know that creating life inevitably results in unwanted consequences.
I think that those who have had to experience the same as the ones in example above, for example in the Second World War, really suffered. That is just a fact.
Of course everything is not that extreme, and what is suffering and what is not is always not so simple.
My point of view is not that "life is only worth living if it is pleasure for the most part ".
My point of view is that having a child is wrong, because it is decision for someone else's life. And we can not know is that life better than never being born.
One other way to approach the question - Is it wrong to have children? - is anti-utilitarian.
Let´s assume that it is so, that life in general is more happy than not. And it is better to be than not to be, on average. But we also know that some people really suffer.
Some might say, that it is not important, that´s life. That is collateral damage.
I think that is just cruel.
:fire: These are tough times!
Note: I’m assuming there is more? If not take the bombast as not bombast :)
Is that different to saying don’t have children because they may lead a life of severe suffering. I don’t think so. Yet I leave the house and cross the road (note: the later is actually dangerous where I live).
First reason to not to have children: Like I said, it is decision for someone´s else´s life and that someone else pays the consequences of that decision.
Second reason to not to have children: Even if it is so that life in general, on average, is a better option than never been born at all, this situation does not apply to everyone.
We know that life causes terrible things for some unlucky people.
I hope the following will clarify my point of view:
"Bruno Contestabile and Sam Woolfe cites the story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. Le Guin. In this story, the existence of the utopian city of Omelas and the good fortune of its inhabitants depend on the suffering of one child who is tortured in an isolated place and who cannot be helped. The majority accepts this state of affairs and stays in the city, but there are those who do not agree with it, who do not want to participate in it and thus they "walk away from Omelas". Contestabile and Woolfe draws a parallel here: for Omelas to exist, the child must be tortured, and in the same way, the existence of our world is related to the fact that someone is constantly harmed. According to Contestabile and Woolfe, antinatalists can be seen just as "the ones who walk away from Omelas", who do not accept such a world, and who do not approve of its perpetuation. Contestabile poses the question: is all happiness able to compensate for the extreme suffering of even one person?[63][64]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
Hi Antinatalist, as you may already know, I like your arguments.. Things that I have to add here:
1) Unnecessary, and unwanted harmful impositions are wrong, period, entailed in the fact that it is on someone else's behalf. All life has some minor transactional harms.. Even giving someone a gift can lead to some harm (butterfly effect maybe). However not procreating is one example where absolutely no harm will follow to any ONE (as they won't exist), and no ONE misses out either (Benatarian asymmetry).
2) Ethics should be based on deontological grounds more than utilitarian, but this doesn't mean that degrees of harm are not existent. Thus, as an example, a very low level theft is wrong, but not as wrong as a theft of someone's life savings or life saving drugs.
3) Amelioration is inherent in existence. That is to say, we are always compromising minimal harms to alleviate lesser harms. Perhaps the cost of a low level harm of a surprise party (because the person doesn't like being surprised) is what must happen in living in any social milieu. We are always compromising, and imposing on others by necessity. Procreation prevents any need for amelioration. All harms are prevented with no collateral damage.
a) No one is obligated to bring about happy people
b) We are obligated to prevent unnecessary harm if it's possible.
c) Not procreating prevents all unnecessary harm for another person (and conversely doesn't create unnecessary harm on their behalf).
d) Once existing, ameliorations must take place for life to move forward. Thus though things can have a low level harm, they can be necessary to ameliorate greater harms.
If there is genes that correlates for antinatalism views, is it quite clear that those genes are not the genes, that will continue to next generations. At least, those are not the first ones.
That natalistic attitude is natural and understandable. Of course it is. Human being is animal among others. What separates us from other animals? The ability to consider philosophical topics, at least.
But this naturalistic, natalistic urge comes from something very deep, cerebral cortex maybe, I don´t know. However, it is like Richard Dawkins said, human being is the only animal who can resist the tyranny of the selfish gene.
So poor people shouldn't have children?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree with you.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you mean when somebody - there is not somebody, but how can you express this correctly in natural language - does not born, it will not harm anybody?
My point of view slightly disagree with Benatar´s. I think, he´s partly right on that, there´s not done any harm for anyone when not having a child, because there is not anyone (I have to clarify: there are not done any harm for any potential person, some might say that not to have a child is a harm for some people, who want to have children but are not having them).
I think, Benatar is partly wrong. Theoretically, could be so that life is better than non-life. I personally don´t think it´s true in general, but I like to argue also against my own arguments.
So, if it so that life is better for someone/some people/everyone than not being at all, is true like Benatar have said there is no harm of losing something or suffering for something good, which cannot be realized. Because there is no one who could suffer from those things.
But suffering for not having something good is only part of the picture.
It ignores the theoretical fact that life could be better for "someone" than never being born.
And for this, some would say there have been done harm not having a child. I understand this point of view, but I don´t agree with that.
When speaking of doing harm or not doing harm, we also speak of duties and obligations - and rights.
The following is purely theoretical,
Let´s assume that life is always better than not life at all, and somehow we can know this fact. Let´s assume that what we call non-life is something where is no experiences at all, there is no one who could experience anything at all.
I don´t think, even in this situation, that no one has duty to reproduce. I don´t think that not having a child is harm doing for anyone (then again, I have to agree with Benatar on this, although I think he is partly wrong on asymmetry argument). Even situation like this, I don´t think it´s obligation to reproduce.
I definitely agree with all of this.
Do you think of this when deciding what gift to buy a friend for an occasion then settling on nothing since the gift could be harmful?
I find it dubious that any action that can risk harming someone automatically becomes wrong if you don’t have their consent.
Quoting Antinatalist
You seem to have somewhat of a false dichotomy going on. Either one must have children or one must not have children.
So what if you never get out of poverty? Why should that be a "stop" for having kids? If I am poor but I wanna have kids and I love them, would that be a bad thing? ?Even if they grow up in a poor environment but with much love is that bad for them?
They might turn into become great people and growing up in poverty at the end to become an "advantage" for them, cause afterwards they will appreciate more other things which are more essential in life than money.
Then you should be the first to know that. You would prefer not to have been born then? Seems to me that you connect poverty with misery. But that's not right at all imo. Poor people can be happy.Rich people can be miserable also.
At the end as you escaped from poverty others might hope the same too.If I am a poor guy but I believe that I will make it and escape, why should I abandon hope or even the joy that a kid will bring in my life??
Quoting 180 Proof
No I don't want to. I want to have my own kids and raise them with no misery at all. Why should I help others kid and deprive myself from the joy of having my own kids just because I m poor?
At the end how many genius scientists have grown up from poor parents and make it afterwards? Should their parents never have them?
All about me me me me me. No consideration for the child.
I’d think not having kids you can’t afford is common sense nowadays. Apparently not.
That's why I said there will be no one. There will be a state of affairs where no person exists, where there could have been the counterfactual case that indeed a person could have existed. This is what is meant by preventing birth or not procreating (with the assumption that there was a possibility for a counterfactual).
Quoting Antinatalist
Right, so you kind of answered your own objection and seem to be in agreement with Benatar's main asymmetry (in regards to prevention of goods). I think the main axiom here is that prevented harms is more important than missed goods (when nobody exists to be deprived). That is the basic axiom which the rest of the asymmetry seems to follow. And it does make sense. No person to miss out on the goods of life is neutral. A person missing out on harms, is good.
Quoting Antinatalist
I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here. I think with Benatar's asymmetry you simply have to keep in mind that preventing harm is more important than happiness-bringing. I guess that is the basic asymmetry.
Gift could be harmful, but comparing gift to having a child is, although natural, but also very extreme thing to do. For potential person´s point of view.
Quoting khaled
Having a child is not a trivial everyday task.
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting khaled
I made very extreme scenario, where having a child is always good thing for the child. In such unrealistic world having a child is right thing to so, but not obligation.
That was theoretical scenario. In real world having a child is wrong.
Quoting Antinatalist
I'm pointing out that just because something is an unconsented imposition clearly doesn't automatically make it wrong. So you need more premises to make the case that this specific unconsented imposition (having kids) is wrong. I am not comparing having kids to giving gifts, I'm pointing out that they share the same properties and you think one is fine while the other isn't. That needs explaining.
I certainly agree with this, also.
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, I think that way also. Preventing harm is more important than happiness-bringing.
Having a child is an egoist thing. Not having is also,but for different reasons.
So you also support that poor people shouldn't have kids?
Poor people should be deprived of that joy in their lives? Kids from poor families can't live happily? Only rich family's kids? Kids need love way much more than money. If a poor guy loves his kids he will do whatever to raise them happily. Even with little money. Why you connect happiness with money?
I don't think that this is your intention but poor people shouldn't have kids sounds kind of racist to me.
Yes.
Quoting dimosthenis9
No, it's just too rare to call having kids in that scenario anything less than irresponsibility.
Quoting dimosthenis9
There is a whole lot between "rich" and "poor". That question that should matter is "can they afford it". By poor I mean they can't afford it.
Quoting dimosthenis9
They also need money. So don't have kids without that.
Quoting dimosthenis9
But he can't do that. You can't magically love people so much they stop being hungry.
Quoting dimosthenis9
It doesn't target any specific race, so it isn't.
Anyways, this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, bye.
Tell that to all scientists and people with happy lives that got raised by poor families. Throughout history might be billions probably . Don't seem so rare. Blame their "irresponsible" parents for that.
Quoting khaled
Better to live with much love and little food than with little love and much food.
Quoting khaled
Being Racist is not only about races obviously. It targets on the group of poor people. So yes it is.
Quoting khaled
With that attitude for sure no. We agree on that. Bye.
One point of view is that you can be unpolite, and give the gift back; or you can decide to never use it. Or throw it away. You can not return your life for anyone.
Of course some will say, that if your life is miserable, you can always make suicide.
I think I have written this text below earlier to this forum (the following text is from my original article, which is a little bit longer than the one I posted here).
On suicide
The possibility of suicide of course exists. Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfill it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide. One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible. And most importantly, not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example).
I am an antinatalist, not pro-mortalist. And it´s different kind of case is life worth continuing than is life worth of starting.
That is an excellent point.
Your objection seems to be that not everyone can commit suicide, but everyone can return the gift. I don't find that convincing, but does it mean that if painless assisted suicide was a right, you wouldn't be AN?
Quoting Antinatalist
Not actually, because I found assisted suicide for children and under-aged unethical. Even so, although they can live in horrible environments and undergo terrible things. Best for situation like this, is help them other way if that is possible. I think euthanasia is ethical, when person is old enough to understand the nature and consequences of the act.
It is paradoxical, however, that many people think that taking own life - suicide - is wrong, but when making a decision for other people´s life when having a child, they see not problem at all.
I think assisted suicide for under-aged people is wrong.
It is different thing if they commit suicide on their own.
I know you can see discrepancy on my point of view "I think euthanasia is ethical, when person is old enough to understand the nature and consequences of the act".
Letting people do suicide is different than to assist her/him on that.
But, however, I have to admit there is at least slight discrepancy in my point of view and my practical action.
If someone under-aged is willing to do suicide, I probably will try to speak her/him not to do it.
I don´t think suicide is wrong at any age, but under-aged probably are not old enough understand the act and its consequences. So, I think under-aged suicider does not do anything wrong, but who will assist her/him at suicide is unethical in her/his act.
My views may change if I will read enough war history.
Florian Huber is a German historian, who have written book named Child, promise me that you will shoot yourself. The downfall of the common people 1945.
I haven´t read this book, but I can imagine horrible situations where people see so miserable things happening now and in the near future, that they hope that their own children will kill themselves.
To procreate is to impose a whole lifetime in this world on another person without that person's prior consent. Normally it is wrong - seriously wrong - to make a major imposition on another person without their prior consent. We recognize this in other contexts. And it doesn't get much more major than imposing a lifetime here on another person. So that's one reason - a Kantian reason - to think that procreation is default wrong.
It is also reasonable to believe that any person one makes live here is innocent - born innocent, that is - and thus a large portion of the suffering they will invariably undergo while living their life will be undeserved. And that's the worse grade of suffering - undeserved suffering. We normally have powerful moral reason to prevent undeserved suffering from occurring. By contrast, the pleasures they experience in life are likely to be largely not deserved as well, for the same reason (the innocent do not deserve to suffer, but nor do they deserve pleasure, even though it may be good for them to receive it). Pleasure that is not deserved is pleasure we typically do not have any moral reason to create. And certainly, it is not normally permissible to create undeserved suffering in order to create some pleasure that is not deserved. So, procreation creates lots and lots of undeserved suffering (especially when one factors in all the undeserved suffering the person one creates will visit on other creatures) and (less) undeserved pleasure. Well, normally an act that will create undeserved suffering and undeserved pleasure is an act we ought not to perform for precisely that reason.
Those who procreate are also typically motivated by immoral desires. For instance, they want to have followers who will worship them unconditionally. So they're pathetic megalomaniacs who want to be the undeserved apple of another's eye. In other contexts we recognize the sick nature of these attitudes.
Parents also don't know what's going to fall out, do they? Could have any character. Could be a saint, could - more likely - be a git. And yet they're going to become addicted to it and devote large portions of their life to caring for it and thinking about it. And that's regardless of what 'it' is. How's that sensible? Is taking heroin sensible? No, because once you start you can't stop. And it's expensive and it will take up your life. So, you know, don't. Well, that's what having a kid will do too.
Being a parent also seems to compound the stupidity. I mean, why are parents 'proud' of their offspring? They invariably are. But why? Is having a child a great achievement? No, someone just squirted some goo into you (is it hard to persuade people to do that??) and then something grew in you and then your body expelled it. Go you!! Well done! Or you persuaded someone to allow you to squirt goo into them and that resulted in a grub growing in other other person's body and then their body expelled it. Go you!! Give yourself a big pat on the back! And then you both fed and clothed it - ooo, aren't you good! You didn't just let it starve or freeze to death. You're a saint! And then it grew up and did things. And you're proud?!? Ashamed is what they should be.
Parents - most of them - are also horribly irresponsible. For if one voluntarily has a child, then one owes that person a lifetime of support. One owes them a comfortable a life. And yet unless you're fabulously rich, you almost certainly can't provide that. So the rest of us have to pick up the tab (that should change, of course - parents should be made to pay the true cost of their irresponsible and self-indulgent procreative decisions). Far from recognizing this, parents - most of them - think they've done a fabulous thing just feeding and supporting and housing the person during that person's most vulnerable period. Er, that's absolutely demanded - that's not praiseworthy, not remotely. You 'ought' to do those things and a whole load more - more than can realistically be done.
Right, rant over.
Yes, normally that kind of acts will be considered morally wrong.
I hadn't been participating in this discussion. I generally avoid anti-natalist threads. But it was a slow day and decided to take a look. I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. I find it hard to take them seriously.
Your post is really clear and counters the anti-natalist argument well in a very down-to-earth way.
I answered to I like sushi.
I doubt, that an antinatalistic view comes from person´s own misery, in general. Of course there could be some people who are miserable and are manifesting their own misery by antinatalistic views.
I, personally, lived quite good, not so miserable life about thirty years ago. I thought at those times about many moral and ethical issues and found that having a child is an unethical thing to do. Antinatalism as a term was not familiar for me.
What an ignorant and irrelevant thing to say. First the ignorance: do a bit of research. Are the childfree happier than parents? There are lots of studies out there. I wonder....
Or, if you can't be bothered to do the research, do a bit of common sense reflection. What do the childfree have more of? Money and time. What do they have less of? Responsibility. So, more money and time. Fewer responsibilities. More money. More time. Fewer responsibilities. Hmm. It's a puzzler, isn't it - does having more money and more time and fewer responsibilities make one happier or more miserable? It's a bit like "is hitting your hand with a hammer likely to make you more happy or less happy?" I just don't know!
Then there's the irrelevance. Whether antinatalism is true or not has nothing to do with the happiness or misery of antinatalists themselves.
Anyway, if the arguments of antinatalists do no more than express their own misery - which can't possibly be true in my case, as I am not at all miserable - then presumably they should be easy to refute, as they were not born of rational reflection, but emotional disturbance. So why not try and refute them?
Quoting Bartricks
I'll be honest, you're right that my comment about how miserable anti-natalists are is irrelevant. It says something about the anti-natalists and not about the argument. I should be ashamed.
Quoting Bartricks
Although I have acknowledged that it is not philosophically appropriate for me to point out faults, failings, and weaknesses of anti-natalists, this text calls out for response. Your statement seems to suggest that responsibilities make people miserable. So what you're advocating is that no one should have children unless we can guarantee that they will never have to face responsibilities.
Quoting Bartricks
In general, you're rude, insulting, mean-spirited, close-minded, and self-aggrandizing. You treat people, at least those on the forum, like shit. That doesn't seem like something a happy person would do.
These could never be logical evidence of happier people. For example, you forget to mention the joy that kids bring to someone's life.Joy that people with no kids are deprived of. And you present "responsibility" as a misery factor, which isn't necessary at all.
As you can't also support of course that Antinatalists are miserable.
For me it cannot be a happiness measurement if someone has kids or not. It logically fails. Since happiness depends on many other factors and first and most important from the person himself and what he wants in his life.
Having kids or not it is a matter of choice simply. There is no right or wrong in these things. I never understood why someone to be considered unethical if he wants kids or either miserable if he doesn't.
Always seemed to me like just another issue(as many others) that people create problems and conflicts out of nowhere. Just as to split into "groups" and "fight".
You seem to be misusing the word 'logical'.
Having children is wrong. It's not wrong because it makes parents unhappy. That's not my argument. I am just pointing out that the childfree are happier as a group. Which is what one would expect, given we have more money, more time, and fewer responsibilities. We are also cleverer.
For instance, this is a philosophy forum. How many of the greats had kids? Not many.
I do not understand your point. You say having kids is a choice. Yes, so? I am arguing that it is a choice one ought not to make. And there are a bundle of reasons for thinking this.
So, do you think it is ok to impose something very considerable on another person without their consent?
I guess you consider your assumption that antinatalists are miserable most definitely not projection, and not a sign of a lack of self-awareness.
I consider myself a happy person, yet I find the antinatalist argument quite convincing. It doesn't mean I like the implications, but the nature of things as it is apparent to me is not affected by me liking or disliking it.
There could be no valid research as to measure that.Even if you could ask all people on earth and the majority told you they are happier, how can you be sure that they would tell the truth?. So stop that research thing.
It is simply impossible to defend that view. Some are happy with kids, others without.
It is totally a matter of choice and it depends inclusively on each person's way of living.
Where exactly is the misuse on logic here??
Quoting Bartricks
Really?? No further comment...
Quoting Bartricks
Once again. So what? That is a proof of having a kid is wrong?? No way.
Quoting Bartricks
As there are bundle of reasons as to have kids. So? You didn't have kids. Perfectly fine. Another wanted to have kids cause that would made him happy. Where exactly is the problem? Why his choice is wrong and yours is right??
My point is the same as I wrote before: it is NOT a matter of right or wrong.
Quoting Bartricks
That question would be valid only if there was a way to "ask" the unborn kid if it want that or not. Since that it's purely impossible the choice to be made is on parent's hands. Simply as that.
First, as I acknowledged before, saying that people are anti-natalists because they project their unhappiness on others is not a legitimate philosophical argument. My comments were gratuitous and irrelevant to the argument. On the other hand, I think the anti-natalist position is profoundly anti-human. It's also poorly supported, no matter how convincing you find it. And by "poorly supported" I mean "silly."
I don't see how that is a good characterization. Why is it "silly"? See all my recent threads.
I don't necessarily agree with all of Bartriks' line of arguments there, but on this one I can see the validity. If there cannot be consent, you have two outcomes:
1) A person is not born, and a person is not imposed upon (and relatedly, does not suffer, experience all the harms over a lifetime).
2) A person is not born, and a person does not experience good things life. But to whom does that matter? Certainly, not the non-existent being, as that makes no sense.
So there is some asymmetry here between 1 and 2 where 1 seems waited as more important to consider than 2.
I have read all or some of many of your threads. Discussion after discussion, post after post, paragraph after paragraph, word after word. Long posts that finally boil down to just one argument.
Not an AN anymore, but this is ridiculous. Since when is it that when we can’t ask for consent, we assume it is given? That’s the exact opposite of what consent is supposed to be for.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Because it’s a choice that can hurt someone and so deserves some consideration.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Let’s assume that a couple has hidden genes that would result in their child having a terrible illness. We’re talking, missing eyes, broken limbs, broken organs, etc. Do you think it’s fine for that couple to have that kid?
The idea that having kids is always fine at all times is silly, even to non antinatalists.
I think that is not charitable that everything I've written boils down to the consent argument. Agreement is actually one I don't use too often. Rather, just the more simple axiom that "It's not good (wrong) to create unnecessary (not for amelioration of a greater for lesser suffering for that person), non-trivial burdens/impositions/harms on someone else's behalf". To boil that down even further, it would be of the deontological variety, similar to Kant's second formulation of not using people, and treating individuals (that could be born) as ends in themselves rather than a massless aggregate utility-producers of possibly bringing a better situation in the world (if that's even possible info to obtain).
See above... Those are Ameliorations.. The child is already born and would be a dereliction of duty as a parent to not prevent greater harm.
That’s what you meant by unnecessary? That’s ridiculous though. You remember the life guard example right? In that example, by this definition, waking up the life guard would be “unnecessary suffering” and so would be wrong. Since the suffering alleviated is not the lifeguard’s.
Clearly you think imposing on one for the good of another is fine sometimes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That’s really where the core of the disagreement lies. Everyone agrees that imposing too much is wrong (true by definition). The disagreement is whether or not life is too much.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This also applies to (1) in exactly, precisely, the same way.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is not a good thing, as there is no one it is good for.
It’s as good as imposing traffic laws on a planet with no inhabitants.
Then see "non-trivial". Next.
Quoting khaled
I guess when we are arguing, yes.
Quoting khaled
Not sure what you mean. No one exists yet to need amelioration.
Quoting khaled
You are actually making my argument. No person, means no goods of life. That no one is harmed is good though.. The only way around this, is that you deny conditional states like "could have happened". You could bite that bullet if you want.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't see how that makes me uncharitable.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't see how that argument is different from my summary in any significant way.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is your judgement of prospective parents motivations. Based on my own experience, both as a parent and observer of other parents, it's not correct for most of us. If you were to make the statement that having children solely for one's own personal gratification is immoral, I'd be more open to agreement, or at least negotiations.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That could be the same for 1 too. Don't you think?
Quoting schopenhauer1
But why 1 is more important than 2?
In general I get your point but for me that question can never be valid since it has no practical use. It can never happen so what to discuss about??
Life is given to all of us without asking. But the "fair" thing for that is that you can also choose to end it whenever you want. It would be totally unfair only if you couldn't.
Haha, I do like your use of "negotiations" there :). But another thing people seem to think is that I am trying to personalize this. I don't go around shaming pregnant people or anything. In other words, I don't think parents are trying to be malicious. I think it's wrong to procreate, but I don't think it's out of bad intent or think them horrible people. Rather I see it as just not fully understanding the extent of the unnecessary, non-trivial burdens put upon another person.
If you think the only motivation or justification for a parent's action is to "prevent greater harm," you are wrong.
Not just us. Again, everyone agrees you shouldn’t impose non trivial suffering on others. They just disagree on how much of an imposition life is.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No. I’m not.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What I said. You make it sound like (1) is a good thing while (2) isn’t a bad thing by virtue of there being no one that (2) is bad for. Well, again, there is no one that (1) is good for.
Pick a consistent basis. Either you’re looking at it from the perspective of “How would this affect an existent person” or from the perspective of “How would this affect a non existent” (it wouldn’t). So either both neutral, or: no suffering = good and no pleasure = bad.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And I see your position as exaggerating those.
Anyways goodnight. I’ll respond in the morning if it seems like there will be new grounds.
Same response. Do you think conditionals exist? "Could" something happen that did not? Harm was prevented which was good. Good was prevented, but how is that bad or good if there's no one there to care? There seems to be an asymmetry where prevented bad that could have happened is good. Prevented good, not so much a bad thing (or good).
Quoting dimosthenis9
Same response.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Perhaps not all of society, but just because a majority of people do something (or don't do it) does that make it right?
Quoting dimosthenis9
That's a fallacy.. What if you never wanted to have the option be to live life or do the generally painful, scary thing of killing yourself? That is the whole point of my last thread about not having an option for no option.
I never thought you would shame prospective parents or that you think they are horrible people. On the other hand, you do question their intent. Your argument about using children for one's own personal gratification shows that.
Ask how??? To an unborn kid? What are you talking about? No you can't ask. Simply as that. If you know a way to ask for an unborn child for permission then please enlighten us all. So yes it's totally parents decision. He/she is the creator either you like it or not.
Quoting khaled
The only silly thing here is your argument. Who talked about such cases as you mention? Of course not it isn't right. When you know that your kid will face serious illness, it's not right at all to have it.But we don't talk about that cases obviously. Pfffff...
My point is that is totally useless, imo at least, to discuss issues that can never happen. You simply can't decide for life. It is given to you. The decision isn't made by us. At least I find it fair that you were given the option to end it. For me it balances the non asking life.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Good that was prevented is bad. You can't claim that preventing harm is good but preventing good then who cares?Either you will say that prevented harm also who cares.. Or preventing good is bad. You can't have it all.
No, not that either. My remark about utility-producers is more towards philosophical arguments like the one Khaled seems to propose which is that the child would bring more positive utility, so is permissible. I think most parents don't think like that. Rather, they think along the lines of the role of being a parent, cultural expectation, for family who wants to see legacy or grandchildren, giving purpose, and something to do, someone to care for, etc etc. Thus, to them, I can see why they think it is justified. It doesn't look at the arguments I am proposing. To be fair, arguments like mine Benatar, or anyone that questions the wrongness of procreation are not usually entertained by most people. I mean, most people don't think about things in a detailed, philosophically robust way anyways, when it comes to a lot of decisions, as far as I see. It's only when one is purposefully trying to think that way, that maybe these types of thoughts start entering the picture. Even then, actually acting on conclusions one comes up with abstractly, may not necessarily happen.
You are misinterpreting what I'm saying, then. You can discuss issues of deciding for others. So, a parent "could" make a decision for another person, but decides this is not right to do so, since the decision to "never be born" would never be an option once the parent actually goes through and has a child. By not having a child, this unjust situation of "no option" isn't even relevant. One situation brings an injustice (born with no "no option" excepting the very difficult prospect of slow suicide through passive starvation/depredation or faster means of suicide) and one situation simply doesn't (not having the child).Similarly, one situation brings about a lifetime of having to "deal with" (impositions, burdens) and one doesn't.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Harm that is prevented seems asymmetrical to good that is prevented. If a harm is avoided (that could have happened), is this not a good thing? If good was prevented, it would only be bad if someone was there to exist to be deprived of it.. An actual person existing doesn't seem to affect the goodness of a possible harm that was prevented though. That seems always good, no matter what. It's good as a state of affairs, whereas the state of affairs of "no good happening" seems to only matter in the relative sense of a person needing to be deprived of it to begin with.
I think this actually ends up being a conversation around the use of language. Do you believe conditionals exist? Something can happen, but does not, for example?
So in this case, there has to be a possibility for bad to happen. If there is no possibility for bad, then it is as you say neutral. If there is a possibility, that in some way, "bad" can happen, and does not, that is good. Certainly, even you have argued that you cannot take "bad states of affairs not happening" off the table just because someone isn't born to realize this. I remember you giving all sorts of gruesome examples to show this isn't true.
This also becomes a discussion around perspective. To be "meta meta".. we can say that if no person exists, no values can be assessed in the first place. But then we get all sorts of cruel outcomes and justifications. We can do anything that affects a future person because they don't exist yet. Once someone knows what "bad" and "good" are, yes, then evaluations of "bad" and "good" come into play.
So there is a way that we are crossing perspectives here...
Highest perspective: Someone needs to exist in the first place for evaluations THEMSELVES to matter. (This is where you are).
Lower perspective: Assuming, people exist who can evaluate good or bad in the FIRST PLACE..
An actual person (that is being affected) does not need to exist in order for prevention of harm to be good. An actual person (that is being affected) does need to exist for prevention of good to be bad.
So basically, then you ask, "What makes suffering so bad compared to the non-existent good"? That is where axiologies basically stop. You either agree imposing harm on another is wrong (if it's unnecessary and non-trivial) or not. That harmful burdens and suffering is not good, and thus not good to enact on another. Happiness may be "good", but not enacting it seems to not matter in a moral sense in the same way not enacting harm is. No harm seems to be more important than no happy.
And yes, I agree you may agree even then that unnecessary burdens, and non-trivial harms are bad to impose on another, but it depends on the degree at which it is not permissible. You think the burdens and impositions are not non-trivial "enough" to be considered impermissible. Alternatively, our definitions of "trivial" may be different. I will go back to things like Willy Wonka's limited choices, and the Exploited Worker, and that is not even discussing agreed-upon, contingent (non-structural yet likely) harms such as physical ailments, accidents, disasters, and the rest.
But all these assumptions end up supposing that a child will have a life of suffer. What if a child mends to live a great life full of happiness.My decision not to have it, how you say that it brings just?? Since you deprive a "0" to live a great life before returning to "0".Is that a good thing?? And If I was an unborn child and had the" option" I would vote "hell yes!".
You say since we can't ask the child the fair thing is not to have it! That already includes the hypothesis that the child will answer "no"!
So assuming" no " is fine but assuming" yes" is bad and unethical??
Anyway I repeat to you that the "unjust" argument is solved for me with the suicide option. And if Antinatalists want also just for parents well they have it too!Also the parent that "shouldn't have the kid" gets "punished" having to suffer the loss of his kid for the rest of his life.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Let's agree we disagree on that. I really can't understand why you make that distinction. I understand your arguments but really I can't accept them. Why you find that asymmetry and the way you "measure" it, I can't agree on that. So better to stop arguing about that,i think,and move on.
Other people not being happy because they cannot enact unwanted harms/burdens on another, shouldn't matter. An extreme case would be someone who gets pleasure if they get to harm someone. Why should that be permissible? I am not saying parents are trying to do this, but life brings with it non-trivial harm, so that ends up being the case, because life is known to be the condition for which harms take place (obviously).
Quoting dimosthenis9
I thought my reply to Khaled is relevant here too:
So basically, then you ask, "What makes suffering so bad compared to the non-existent good"? That is where axiologies basically stop. You either agree imposing harm on another is wrong (if it's unnecessary and non-trivial) or not- hat harmful burdens and suffering is not good, and thus not good to enact on another. Happiness may be "good", but not enacting it seems to not matter. No harm seems to be more important than no happy.
Now I get why you and me disagree then. I think you just mentioned the "root" here.
For me that's ONLY how humans has made life seem. And how they think about it.
My cosmo theory is very different than yours. Life is a joke! Even a bad joke is nothing more than a joke!
And now your nickname makes more sense to me. No offense here, just telling you what I exactly thought when I read that.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But why?? Why seems like that?! And as you keep writing "seems!"." Seems" means "not sure" also. Anyway we keep repeating the same things here.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's exactly my question.
And since "axiologies stop" , that's another evidence that you can never be sure about the harm-good assumption you make.
To take an extreme case.. someone in utter pain isn't going to necessarily be able to wave such things away.. One has to eat.. etc. Joke assume easy-to-deal-with and light. Surely, someone must find ways to live in the word, lest they die (they must "deal with" inescapably lest they die by starvation). Surely, contingent, harmful events might happen to someone as well. Structural and contingent harms happen..That's no joke.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Because we are talking about other people, imposing non-trivial burdens on others is overlooking the other person's dignity. This isn't the case with happiness-bringing.
Why you think that a person who suffers (and there might be probably billions as we are talking) don't kill himself?? Cause they STILL answer "yes" to life. Life to most people is much more preferable than "nothing","0", even if they suffer!
Quoting schopenhauer1
It is the exact same for me!
We will never agree on that. Let's face it. It's OK. Not saying that I m surely right and you are wrong. We just think different on that.
Yup. Nice summary.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Agreed that imposing too much harm is wrong.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But, and I hate to bring this up again, this would be insufficient. You think surprise parties are ok. So you do sometimes think that the amount of good created can trump the harm inflicted making an act neutral. I’d say maybe there are situations that make it obligatory even, but I haven’t tested that idea extensively.
Point is: You yourself don’t believe in the asymmetry “It’s wrong to do something that risks harming someone no matter how much pleasure that could bring as enacting pleasure is not a duty”
Quoting schopenhauer1
This would’ve been a point in our last discussion but I got tired and deleted it. Yes, do please go back to those examples. Show me how you can derive that Willy wonka’s forced game is a non trivial imposition, without referring in any way to the victims opinions of their situation. I just don’t see how you “objectively” measure how bad an imposition is with no reference to the person being imposed upon. What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? A certain duration? A certain number of work hours?
Ok, at least you don’t have a ridiculous position. Though it seems to me there is a contradiction between here:
Quoting dimosthenis9
And here:
Quoting dimosthenis9
How is it not right sometimes and also not a matter of right and wrong?
Quoting dimosthenis9
Just food for thought. I don’t agree with shope either:
Is someone who can afford to give 100 dollars to charity but chooses not to as bad as someone who steals 100 dollars?
Because that seems like it’d follow if you believe that bringing about happiness is as important as not harming. I’m not quite made up on the issue but I do think they’re comparable.
Many people are fearing suicide. Something of that fear could be evolutionary fear of death (this was "good" for selfish gene in human history). Something comes from upbringing and religions. Some religions, at least, are saying that if you do suicide, that is wrong and you are going to Hell. On the other hand, many people think their (possible) close ones, and don´t make suicide because they think it´s too much grief for their loved ones. So is quite understandable that many people, who suffer and are willing to die, don´t make suicide.
Well, a lot of this has to do with a distinction that Benatar makes, and I think appropriately, between starting a life and continuing a life. This is why a lot of analogies don't compare apples to apples. But, this also involves our difference between deontology and utilitarianism. When starting a life.. What matters here always, if we are not using them, is the person whose life we are starting. In this framework, the asymmetry of not starting harm and not starting happiness becomes much more highlighted. In light of that person would not be harmed (which is good) and that person would not have happiness (neutral), that makes sense. However, once alive, there might be a case that after already being born, that preventing happiness, when one can for someone, with minimal cost to oneself, would seem to be some sort of morally worthy act. However, I am not sure if it is obligatory as the harm is. And even in the harm realm (after being born), ameliorations abound. We are always compromising and having to do minimal harms (sometimes trivial sometimes non-trivial), because just to survive, often we must do this. Sometimes just minimal mitigations are all you can do after the birth decision. The birth decision however, is different in that no mitigation needs take place. One can fully prevent the unnecessary, non-trivial harm.
Okay, so all surveys count for nothing. You should contact universities and tell their researchers to stop[ doing them. Witness statements to crimes count for nothing. They 'could' be telling a lie. Thousands of people say the mugger had a green cap on - but as far as you're concerned that's not good evidence that mugger had a green cap on. Goodness, how silly you are. No wonder you think having kids is morally fine.
Quoting dimosthenis9
But your comments support the claim.
That's what you understood from what I wrote??? Pfffff..
Quoting Bartricks
Yeah I know. You didn't have kids. So you belong to "clever". I'm sure you have a research for that too.
You fail to understand simply logical things. I told you that these kind of researches can never be valid and you talk about witnesses and green cup shit.
You insist that having kids is wrong and you don't accept that it is a matter of choice simply. So what else to discuss with you? You rape logic.
Happiness can never be measured by one factor only (having kids or not). It's pure stupidity if you think that. Nothing else to say.
It is default wrong to do something to someone else without their consent.
That doesn't mean it is 'always' wrong. It's easy to dream up cases where it is right to do something to someone else without their consent. But for that to help, you then need to argue that the cases in question are relevantly analogous to acts of procreation - and invariably they are not.
For instance, it is often right to do something to someone else without their consent if that's the only way to prevent that person from coming to a great and undeserved harm. That's why it's right forcibly to educate children - if one does not, then they will come to a great and undeserved harm: they'll grow up to be ignorant in a world in which being ignorant is incredibly dangerous (and they're likely to do stupid things such as, you know, have kids).
But the case is obviously not relevantly analogous to acts of procreation. The act of procreation is not an act necessary to prevent the person you propose creating from coming to a great undeserved harm, is it?! For clearly either people exist before they are born here, or they do not. If they do not, then there is no possible harm that an act of procreation rescues them from (and thus the act has the badmaker and not the relevant goodmaker....and so is wrong). And if they do, then you know nothing whatever about their situation and so you are not justified in bringing them here without their consent, for you may be making their situation considerably worse not better.
Note as well, life doesn't have to contain harms for this argument to go through. For instance, you are clearly not entitled to inject me with a drug you'll think I enjoy without my consent, and that remains true even if I really would enjoy it.
To make a good case against the consent argument for antinatalism, you'd need to locate some great harm that the act is needed to avert.
Cause we talk about having kids or not in general. And not in specific cases. When you already know that your kid will face illness for sure , is it the same when you just assume that your kid might face suffering in its life?
First case's outcome is already known. So when you decide to make a kid and you already know that it will suffer of course it is wrong to have it. But that has nothing to do with the second case.
I see no contradiction here.
Quoting khaled
I don't think that this example is similar to the case here. It's like you already assume that "stealing" (wrong) is the "having kid" case. So you lead the conclusion to your preference already.
Why then you don't consider as depriving happiness from an unborn kid a bad thing also?
I really can't understand how you and schopenhauer measure harm and happiness and you decide that harm counts more.
These cases exist indeed. But many others prefer to go on living even if they suffer cause they still think life is better. Plus when one suffers still he has hope that things will get better and he will overcome it. His hope for happier days is much stronger even from the actual suffering.
There are even cases among the ones you mentioned,that people just find excuses to religion and grief of their loved ones cause at the very bottom they don't want to die at all!
You're sure I have 'a research' for that? What does that even mean? Do you mean 'evidence' for that?
Quoting dimosthenis9
Is that you, Peter Ustinov?
Quoting dimosthenis9
No, I argue that it is. It imposes a lifetime here on someone else without their consent; it creates considerable undeserved suffering and does not promote deserved pleasure; and those who perform such acts typically have a whole range of morally bad motives for doing so.
It's also spectacularly stupid, which may also contribute to its being immoral if, that is, we have a duty to ourselves not to be too stupid.
Quoting dimosthenis9
That's a category error. But rape is a good example of an act that is wrong because the other does not consent to it. Imagine that no woman wants to have kids. Is it morally permissible to rape them? Surely not. Why? Because they do not consent to it (that's a going to be a major part of the story of its wrongness, anyway). The human race will now end. But so be it. It is more important not to make someone else do something significant - such as have sex, say, or live a lifetime in a place - without their consent than it is to procreate. Which is why it would be immoral to procreate even if they did consent, for the act will still make someone else do something significant without their consent: live a whole lifetime here.
They are very weak points. I can think of better points. For example, people who have children generally suffer more stress and have less ‘happiness’. People who don’t have children though don’t have the elated highs of being a parent.
On balance if you really think having children is bad/wrong/not good, then I don’t understand why.
But since you can never have an consent on that why we even talk about it? I can't understand really. We discuss about an impossible scenario. But anyway let me get into your way of thinking.
Are you sure that the "answer" from the "unborn" child would be "no"?? How can you know that? As to follow you down to that road, even if I don't want to.
Cause when you decide not to have kids for that reason. You already assume a " no" answer from the kid!
And you keep talking about suffering and suffering. As if that's only what exists on life. As if life is a earth hell or something. No it isn't. There is plenty of suffering yes, but plenty of happiness also. You can never measure exactly this things. It's impossible.
Quoting Bartricks
Live a whole lifetime here. And you present it like "welcome to life freak show". You make life seems like an unbearable torture all the time.
So for you, If everyone followed your advice. Humans would stop existing right? You are ok with that I suppose? That's the right thing at the end!? To make our species disappear since "unborn kids" don't give us the "permission" to bring them to life?
That's more than antinatalist. That's anti humanist then!
Clearly. So you think if it is impossible to get someone's consent to do x, then it's ok to do it?
Okay: so if Tim wants to rape Jane - so, he wants to have sex with her without her consent - then you think it is okay for him to do it? After all, it is impossible for Jane to consent to be raped, isn't it? If she consents, it is not rape. So, by your logic, as long as you want to rape someone, it is okay for you to rape as rape can't be consented to.
Understand yet? If you can't consent to something, that makes that act default wrong. Not default permissible. Default wrong. Normally very serious wrong at that.
This was a point Kant made. You can't consent to be coerced. Hence coercion is default wrong. YTou can't consent to be deceived. Hence deception is default wrong. All I am doing is noticing that this applies to procreative acts. It really isn't hard to understand, so I don't understand why you don't understand it.
So imagine you don't know whether I want to take heroin or not. You're just not sure, though you do know that it is highly addictive. You just inject me with some. That's wrong, yes? Really wrong. And it's really wrong even if - as is likely - I then find myself enjoying it and get addicted. Yes?
Now back to the unborn. Maybe they exist in some other realm, maybe they don't. You don't know and you don't know whether they'd enjoy living here or not (though you do know that they'll almost certainly get addicted to it). Is it ok to just bring them here anyway? No. That'd be wrong - much more wrong, in my view - than injecting me with heroin without my consent.
I didn't refer to having kids at all. This isn't about that, it's more general. It's about:
Quoting dimosthenis9
When someone steals from a charity he hurts them, by how much? 100 dollars in this case.
When someone doesn't donate to charity he doesn't help them, by how much? 100 dollars in this case.
If you weigh harming and helping in the same way, then you would think the person who doesn't donate is just as bad as the person who steals.
Quoting dimosthenis9
But I'm not an antinatalist.... You know, just because I don't agree with shope on everything doesn't mean I disagree with everything either....
Quoting dimosthenis9
Read my responses to shope and you'll find that isn't the case.
I see 0 justification for the double standard.
Also I think you meant “providing” happiness?
Did you know,
1. Malnourished women stop having periods? Nature's way of telling us not to have children if we can't afford them i.e. we're unable to fulfill their basic necessities, food being one. Suffering!
2. Lactational amenorrhea occurs when women are nursing infants? Another of nature's ingenious tricks to stop us from giving birth to more children than we have the time/energy for. Suffering!
3. The age at which young girls undergo menarche (getting their first period) has been steadily reducing over time? Menarche simply announces to all male parties that a girl is ready to bear offspring.
Looks like mother nature knows her stuff pretty well I must say. If people don't listen to what you have to say Schopenhauer1, they'll continue to multiply like rabbits, overpopulation then, malnourishment follows, women will stop menstruating, no children. Just what you recommend, no? Either that or people heed your warning and start using contraception, stop/control population growth, before we find out the hard way why we shouldn't have children.
There are factors that could justify the making of significant decisions on someone else's behalf that apply to the raising of children, and not to the having of children.
The first, acting on behalf of another person's well-being. Assuming the parents' primary concern is the happiness of their child, this applied to the raising of children. However, the act of having children does not involve this, since there is no child on behalf of whose well-being one can act.
The second, possessing some wisdom of what constitutes that well-being. In case of raising a child, it can be argued that the parents have gained some wisdom in regards to the nature of their child and what constitutes their happiness and well-being. In the case of having children, no such wisdom exists as the object, the child, does not yet exist.
If the raising of children is not done with 1. The well-being of the child as its primary concern, and 2. The wisdom required to achieve that well-being, then the raising of children is not a moral act either.
So he drops the qualifier 'potential' in order to present a bad argument. One can't do crimes against potential things.
Or another way. Every living person is a potentially dead person so killing people is ok.
It's the same as "not to do it" since you can never be sure about his "answer".For me, It just doesn't matter at all, since he has absolutely no say on that.
Quoting Bartricks
Come on, come on. Please. What kind of concept is that?? No of course it's not my logic that thing. Jane is already alive so she has the option to accept or deny sex with Tim. If she denies then no Tim has absolutely no right to do so!
How you compare the choice of a living person (Jane) with the no-option of an unborn kid??? You find them similar? They are completely different cases.
Quoting Bartricks
You see, that's where we disagree. You can't consent to be born so you say it is wrong.
I say that, since you have absolutely no way to consent or not, then it simply doesn't matter at all! You are a "0" when your parents decide to have you. "0" has no way to choose. So the choice is up to the ones who are already alive. Parents. They decide if they want to make a "0" into something! It doesn't make it wrong at all in eyes.
Quoting Bartricks
Your example is the same as the previous. You compare already living creatures with the ability of choice. With non existence "creatures". For me it's like comparing apples with oranges. Sorry I can't accept that.
Quoting Bartricks
If you support that unborn kids exist "somewhere else" already then it changes the whole discussion. Then your claims might have some validity.
But for me they don't exist anywhere else at all. It's simply "0",nothing.
And you can't ask from a " 0" permission for something. It's purely impossible.
And I repeat to you than when you decide not to have a kid, you already do something without his "consent" also. You decide a" no" answer for it. You say kid didn't give you the permission to have it, so you shouldn't. Well he didn't give you the "permission" not to have it also. Right? How is that different??.
But we are talking about "potential" harming. It's not that the parents think that the kid will suffer for sure, so they still have them! Some have happy lives and they think "oh let's bring into that party someone else also as to enjoy it like me!". Why that decision to be characterized as wrong. Sorry I can't accept it simply.
Back to our issue again. Even if I accept what you are saying about harm and happiness (which sorry I can't but anyway). Why should we always assume that having a child will bring harm to it?? Or more harm than happiness to it?? Why we even start from that assumption?? I can't understand.
What If a kid has an excellent life, full of happiness and the only harm he faces is his death at the end! Would you count again in that cases, harm and happiness with the same way?? If you were an unborn kid and had the "option" what would you choose? I would choose "yes" I ensure you.
Quoting khaled
It sounds fair.
The choice depends on the circumstances I would get thrown in. If these were those in which my fate was brim I would think twice before chosing to give it a try.
Quoting dimosthenis9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna_principle
Quoting dimosthenis9
Maybe for someone, but there is definitely lots of people whom those are not excuses.
The fundamental difference of those acts - crossing a road or having a child - that when you are having a child, you are playing with another person´s life. Whole life.
Quoting I like sushi
Let´s assume that you are right on that happiness -point. So what?
I´m not a fan of Immanuel Kant, but he got something right. If you consider having a child only at parent´s point of view, you are treating the child as a mean - not as an end in itself.
Strange logic.
Honestly, this is a whole other discussion, so maybe that should be another thread? We can't even agree on prevention of harm idea let alone this.
Interesting. Not the reasons I am advocating, but too much population is bound to be bad somewhere, even for our oh-so-clever species.
But this is presenting a bad argument here. You can justify having a future person experience all sorts of terrible things because they don't exist yet. Conditionals like "could" and "likely to" don't go out the window because the potential X is not here at the present.
So I believe this to be best resolved definitionally and axiomatically.
Can we agree on what an imposition is?
Do we agree what non-trivial means?
Do we agree with what unnecessary means?
Do we agree that there is an extra duty of care when it comes to doing something on another person's behalf?
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong?
We can go from there.
Yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Probably.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm asking you to define it. Without any reference to experiences or their reports. You claim this is possible.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You defined it, let's go with that.
Quoting schopenhauer1
"Extra" as in more than simply "I'd want this done to me so it's fine"? Yes.
What? We don't consider the present is exactly the same as the projected future states? How do we pretend cardiac base tissue is a person, by other means?
All we have to agree on is there is a distinction between non-trivial and trivial harms. We don't even need to go much further than that. I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. All we have to agree on here is that there is a distinction, and that non-trivial harm exists for everyone born.
So if a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition? Wasn't this one of our main points of disagreement?
Micro/macro fallacy or somesuch similar thing. Answer the question, and don't give an example as if this covers all cases.
Quoting khaled
And you responded:
Quoting schopenhauer1
And now you don't want to support that answer. So,
Quoting khaled
Quoting schopenhauer1
So... define it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
A question ends with a question mark. I honestly don't know what you want me to answer here.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I guess this? Yes, we agree that non trivial harm exists for everyone born.
Ok, now, how do you determine what non trivial harm is without reference to experiences or reports?
Good. Then my argument is follows from there.
Quoting khaled
I admitted it can even be subjective, instead of some objective list of wrongs. As long as you think non-trivial harm exists for all humans, the argument stands:
Quoting schopenhauer1
The question then was: Quoting schopenhauer1
What argument?
Do you mean to say that "non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong"?
Because that doesn't follow at all.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. Also, life has such non trivial unnecessary harms. Also, that doesn't lead to it being wrong to impose. Think about it.
Where did you get that idea? That is something you just implied, not what I stated. I am simply asking, after we have agreed on the definitions:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I already answered yes though.
Then I think we should be done arguing.
For a true blue antinatalist you seem not so concerned. My point is that there are real, extremely urgent reasons to adopt a global antinatalist policy, either partially or in full. Time is running out for us - either we declare a moratorium on birthing or we all die of starvation, quite possibly some other complication of overpopulation will do us in.
How so?
Because that's the major claim I am advocating (as I think you know at this point). Are now just arguing for argument's sake? Are you a bot that gives stock bad fallacies and debate-club "traps" :brow: continuously, without end?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Which I agreed with forever ago. But that's not what I asked you in any way shape or form.
I asked:
Quoting khaled
You said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So then I asked:
Quoting khaled
And you said you'll answer my question but you need me to answer first. I have answered. Now. If a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition?
Because you clearly don't think it's purely subjective.
Oy vey. Look, the major premise is what we agreed upon. That is my major justification (at least one of them as they have been developed through our particular dialectic). What is causing you to continue at this point? This is the main justification (at least in our dialectic context) for antinatalism. Why can't you agree to agree!
Quoting khaled
I think now you are indeed arguing for argument's sake. We agree antinatalism at least, can be justified on the grounds I stated. Can we agree on that first? This is tangential to that major claim, and doesn't need to be argued to support it.
Well aside from the fact that I don't think it leads to AN, yes I agree with your general premise
Quoting schopenhauer1
No I'm picking up something I asked on the other thread we didn't go into. You have some standard by which you decide that some imposition is non trivial and that standard doesn't take into account the subjective experience of the recipient. What is that standard?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes.... I am aware it is tangential. Or do you wanna go over the same grounds over and over?
No, I think it is important though to dileneate the major from the tangential and to have some resolve somewhere. I believe there at least has to be some goal or benchmarks of where we are at to be productive and not just one long scrawl of arguments that go infinitum..Again, unless you're that debate-class bot :lol:.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Which was done here:
Quoting khaled
I literally explained that this was a tangent from the outset. What's got you so worked up?
Says who?
Quoting Tzeentch
Says who?
Quoting Tzeentch
I didn't say having a child is a moral act, only that it is not an immoral act. Also, says who?
Nothing. I actually think now, I'm less worked up. The major premise is more important to me than this argument which I am not as invested in.. Remember, I have made a LOT of threads.. Just because I am debating the latest one, doesn't mean it's my most important one (to my case at least).
So, I assume you won't answer? I would think that how you determine "non trivial" is very crucial considering literally everyone on planet earth would agree to "foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong".
If you don't want to discuss it that's fine, just don't make a whole play about how I'm a high school debate bot or whatever, drama queen.
I am helping you out here by delineating the arguments...
You agreed that every human experiences non-trivial harm. That we agreed upon. So this debate is tangential to that fact, right?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Even though I clearly already did....
Quoting schopenhauer1
For the 3rd time. Yes. Will you or will you not answer the question?
Ok cool, so this debate does not affect your agreement to the main premise because we agreed all life has non-trivial harm, correct? So you cannot take the tangent to debate the main premise if it's already agreed that it exists, correct? In other words, now we are debating the epistemology of non-trivial harms, not its existence in people that are born, correct?
Edit: I’m taking a break from this site, probably won’t be responding for a while. Have a good day!
I think my response was completely meaningful, if a bit snarky. "Says who?" can be translated as "I disagree" with the snark added to tweak you for self-righteousness.
That's a really really interesting view. And it deserves another thread on its own. Big one.
But I think at this one we examine the "basic theory of antinatalism" under "normal" circumstances. That is no starvation threat (for now) at least.
I think we try to compare 2 different types of thinking .2 different "theories". And as to do that fairly, we should examine them under the exact same circumstances. If we want a fair outcome out of this discussion. Imo at least.
But what you mentioned is really interesting and almost for sure a question that humanity will be forced to face in future.
You're right, fair play implies natalism and antinatalism have to be compared under the exact same conditions. Notice, however, that natalism leads to antinatalism via overpopulation and and vice versa when the tables are turned as happens with underpopulation. The world swings pendulously between these two extremes. The takeaway is that neither natalism nor antinatalism is good philosophy, they fail as a global reproductive policy.
The solution: Control/regulate reproduction, strike a balance between too many births and too few births in order to maintain a steady, flat population curve. That way both natalists and antinatalists will have nothing to complain about as there's enough for everybody - happy, content lives are possible.
I wasn't aware that your comments needed to be translated first.
Let me have a try:
"I don't like what you're saying, but I can't find grounds to disagree."
Why do I need to provide grounds for my judgement when you provided no grounds for your original statement?
I´m not sure do I understand your point. Can you clarify what you mean?
What you mention it creates a "bridge" between them indeed. Seems like that at least.
But nihilism doesn't favour anyone because it means all value statements have no truth value.
I think that you can talk meaningfully about harm and prove that creating life creates harm. I don't think you can deny that harms are caused by creating life, that wouldn't exist otherwise.
Creating a child is creating someone else who can form their own opinion about having been created so I don't think someone can be told that their parents did them no wrong because they are the person who is having the requisite experiences.
It may come down to a battle of moral intuitions that can't be resolved.
Personally I think the level of harm humans have and do experience like genocide, war, famine and disease etc outweighs any of life's pleasures.
The conviction something is wrong backed up by arguments and evidence means that someone's moral position is strongest.
So in this sense I am not a moral relativist. Either nothing is right or wrong or there is a moral fact.
As I mentioned about harm previously I think harm is objective and even without morality a calculation of harms can be made. My idea of harm is based on my own ability to experiences pain and the belief other humans have similar experiences.
My statement is that having children is morally wrong.
I answered with following citation of my original text to I like sushi:
The basic argument is as follows: we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence of another individual or – to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.
Quoting Antinatalist
Let's suppose that the best scenario for you happen. And all people adopt your theory. So at the end your final claim is that humanity should stop existing right?? That no more kids, no more humans.
You find that rational?? It was always one of the main reasons I never could understand that kind of Logic! You find logical humanity to end cause we just "can't ask" an unborn, NonExisting creature?? Really that sounds rational to you??Just asking, really.
And at the end since your final conclusion is that. Then why you call yourselves antinatalists and not anti humanists?? It would be a more honest name, imo at least.
It may not sound rational of point of selfish gene (little bit anthropomorphism here). I see evolution simply as a mechanism. There are no physical laws for that human beings have to exist.
I see antinatalism as a rational, but unpopular philosophical view.
Quoting dimosthenis9
What is humanity? There is many ways to use word/concept "Humanity" or "Humanism". Let´s use "Humanism" I suppose the way you use it (you can correct me if your view is different). It is something good. Something unselfish, peace-loving, something which reach for love and justice.
On that perspective I find antinatalism very humanistic point of view.
I used the word humanism here as to describe "human species".People.
How you find antinatalism humanistic(with the way you defined it) since the ultimate result of your theory would be a totally disappearance of humans? An end to human nature?? I really can't understand this.
Doesn't that imply that you find human creatures unworthy of living? Is this a different kind of "love" for humans and I m the only one who doesn't get it? (maybe I am, don't know).
I will try to clarify my view for you.
My main reason for my antinatalistic view is few post above, so I don´t repeat it here. A different kind of perspective for antinatalistic philosophy is first of all take a long look to world, human beings, all mankind.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I would prefer to turn this question upside down. Life is for some people, at least, such a terrible burden that is certainly not worth of living. In earlier post I have touched the problem of suicide in many cases.
The suicide is not a real option for all people, who live misery lives (like almost all abused children, many mentally retarded people - and I don´t mean that all retard people live misery life, and I have to underline, because I have often become misunderstood, my point of view is that the value of life of mentally handicapped is as important as anyone else’s).
But many mentally retarded people - cause of environment or their own mental condition - are not capable for doing suicide, even when their life is so miserable, that they self think it is not worth continuing. And think about children who suffer sexual abuse without any way out. That is just awful, pure evil.
I think the love for people, all mankind, is realized when they don't have to be born in the first place. When there are no humans, there are no wars, concentration camps, genocides, famine, rapes and other sexual abuse, any other violence, no suffering for losing your loved ones, physical pain and so on.
Of course you can say, in that case there are also not the good things which come with life. And you are right about that. But I think these good things in life are far from balancing the bad ones.
And even if I were wrong in the previous sentence, and we also somehow could come to conclusion that the happiness and other good things outweighs the bad, I still don´t think it is right to reproduce (let´s forget my main reason for antinatalism and think only the things I have dealt with in this post).
Utilitarians think the other way. If the good outweighs the bad in life, then having a child in this world is probably a good thing. On average, from utilitarian point of view. But I don´t think that even when considering life only from utilitarian perspective, we could come to the conclusion that in this real world good outweighs the bad.
My point of view is that preventing harm is a higher value than bringing happiness. Philosopher Sami Pihlström, who is not an antinatalist, and whose views differ in many issues from my own, says utilitarianism is not an ethical theory at all. I agree with him on that.
The human species is not a person. It doesn't have interests. It doesn't have desires. It's just a term for a collection of persons whose bodies have some things in common, namely a certain genetic history. No one owes it any obligations.
Quoting Bartricks
Your mind is still stuck in the "rape" thing. I already answered you that no its not right at all. And I also mentioned you that is totally irrational to compare a living woman's choice(which she is entitled to have and to express it), with an unborn, non existing creature "potential choice".
If you find them similar and same cases,i don't have anything more to say.
That upside down thing doesn't answer at all to my question but anyway.
You keep referring to all those who suffer (and there are many indeed). You don't say anything about those who don't see life as suffering at all. And there are also many!
So since some suffer (even if some of those still prefer life as I mentioned to you at previous post) let's not have kids at all from the fear of the potential suffering! Let's end human existence. Sounds logical??
Quoting Antinatalist
So you actually admit that you do want Humans to disappear. You just try to present it like a "good", "unselfish", "moral" thing. Sorry but there is no way to accept that. It is totally out of my logic.
Quoting Antinatalist
Totally disagree.
Quoting Antinatalist
Your point of view ends with the conclusion : that preventing harm is a higher value than life itself at the very end!! And this is something that my Logic fails to follow. It just stops being logic, for me at least.
Anyway as to sum up, cause I think I played almost all my "cards" here and I don't have anything else to add.
I always respect all kind of opinions,even if I don't agree. I respect antinatalists too. But for me as I mentioned to another post this issue can never be a matter of right or wrong! That base is absolutely false for me. It is 100% a simple matter of choice.
Humans just find another reason to practice their favorite "hobby". Split into groups and fight! Making an issue out of nowhere,like in many other cases. Cause they always feel that their choice only is the right one and everyone should do as they do.
That's all for me.
Yes, I want human race to disappear. By voluntary choice. Not very realistic that this will happen in near future, but I think that way.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I have touched the subject in my original text, in chapter Utilitarianism and the best possible world. Even if you were right, your point of view is some kind of utilitarianism. I think utilitarianism is a cruel philosophical ideology.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Preventing harm by not having a child is greater value than giving life for someone not yet existing. Not "giving a life" for someone not existing, we are not doing harm for anyone. But by "giving a life" for yet not existing, we are doing harm for someone who will exist because of this act. I agree with David Benatar with his asymmetry argument.
My ethics is to respect people who already exist, their lives have a great value - even when they have bad ones (Life can have also negative value, but we have to respect peoples own choices of their own life), they only have right to end it (euthanasia and killing for self-defense are different kind of situations)). Also their sovereignty as human beings obligates other people not to use them as a mean for something, and same philosophy is also one reason for my antinatalistic views.
Yes, my AN is along similar deontological ends. In the end, it's about not using people. Do not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms/burdens/impositions to someone else.
That's because you don't seem to understand its import. You said previously that as it is impossible to consent to be born, this somehow means the choice to impose a life on someone here doesn't matter, ethically. That's absurd. There are lots of acts it is impossible for the affected party to consent to, such as acts of rape and other acts of coercion. You can't consent to be raped. You can consent to sex. You can't consent to rape. So, by your logic, that means rape is fine, or at least that the fact it was non-consensual doesn't matter. Which is absurd.
So, the fact one cannot consent to be created is a fact about procreative acts that it is reasonable to suppose makes them immoral.
Exactly and I support it.
Quoting Bartricks
At the first case (unborn kid) it's purely impossible cause there is no way to know the choice of the unborn kid. It doesn't even have that capability!
At the rape case woman is already alive and of course she has the choice to agree or not with the sex. And she can also express it(yell, scream, hit etc) !We have also the ability to just ask her for what she wants! Ability that we don't have with the unborn kid! So at that case we CAN know her choice.It is a given fact!
It's not impossible at all as it is with the unborn kid. How you find these cases same and that I somehow support rape is beyond my logic power really.
Anyway I think we repeat the same things here over and over again. So let's drop it.
I don't think it is at all. I don't even support utilitarianism. It is just a simple matter of choice for me as I told you. Nothing else.
Quoting Antinatalist
Ok at least now you admit it. I don't agree at all and I find it irrational. But as I told you I respect every opinion so I respect yours also.
Quoting Antinatalist
Sorry but it's not the case here either.
You care about the "rights" and "potential suffering" of an "unborn creature" a "0".But you don't give a fuck for the actual suffering of the ones that are already alive!
If someone wants to have kids. And he truly wants that with all his heart. That will make him so happy and not having will make him miserable for the rest of his life. Well in that case with your theory you "condemn" a living creature's life into ACTUAL suffering and misery by urging him not to be happy and have kids for the sake of the POTENTIAL suffering of a non existing creature! You value potential suffering of a "0" more that the actual suffering of an already living person. So no, please don't say that.
Yeah, when children never have their parents.
Quoting 180 Proof
Alive woman = option ability = possible to consent or not into something = we can(and MUST) ask for her permission, she can say no! If we simply don't ask her and go rape her is totally immoral and wrong!
Unborn kid = 0 option ability =impossible to consent or not into something =we can't ask it simply! No choice option at all here!
You insist comparing these 2 cases and find them similar. Then yes don't get it at all. We will never agree on that. Let's drop it.
So, contrary to what you think, the fact the one who is brought into being here by an act of procreation could not consent to it makes such acts far from ok.
But your argument leads to slippery slopes to all sorts of bad conclusions. Answer me this.. Does all life have non-trivial suffering for humans (at least at some point)? If that future person wasn't already born in the first place to need to ameliorate a greater harm with a lesser harm (like let's say a vaccine or schooling), why should someone be able to make a decision on someone else's behalf that puts that future person into conditions of non-trivial suffering? Just because life might have non-suffering aspects doesn't change this fact you are going to put that future person into some form of non-trivial suffering. No one should foist unnecessary, non-trivial suffering on someone else's behalf, just because it's convenient for their preferences, lifestyle, or raised utility.
I think I answered you again on that. Cause that "someone else" you mention is a "0".Simply doesn't exist! So that someone has absolutely no say! It is simple living creatures decision.
At the end the living creature makes the choice for his own happiness" I wanna have kids ". So I will use my body (semen) as to create. What exactly is immoral on that??
Why you value that living creature suffering (since you think he shouldn't have kids) less than the potential suffering of a creature that DOESN'T even exist? Sounds fair and logical for you??
What you don't seem to understand is that in 1st case that "that someone" is ALIVE
2nd case "that someone" is 0.NOT existing. Nothing.
If you can't understand and see the difference here I don't have anything else to add.
And if someone dies, there's no need to honour their will?
It would put the issue in a whole different base for sure. Don't know if I would still agree on that but for sure I would rethink it and reconsider it.
But as I told you again imo I don't think they exist "somewhere else" already.
No, I don't think you really believe the implications of this. Think about it. Okay, so there's no actual child that exists yet... What if you KNEW that the future child would be born into horrible circumstances, like 100% right after birth. Does this fact not affect anything? Your answer will tell me a lot.
You mean like having a disease and be 100% sure that my kid will be born with the same horrible disease also? Did I get it right or you mean something else?
If I get it right. So for sure no. You shouldn't have kids. Cause you ALREADY know the outcome! You know for sure that your kid will have a terrible disease. So you already know it and despite that you condemn it into suffering(or a life with much more suffering than happiness at least) . Nope that isn't right at all! But are we only talking about such cases here with antinatalism?
The word choices like ‘playing’ tell me something about you. This isn’t a logical discussion. You have an opinion that, as far as I can see, has little to no weight to it.
The comparison I made was to get the point across that we cannot fear causing ‘suffering’ every step in our lives. Every step in your life will cause ‘suffering’ some where. By this logic killing all humans will end their ‘suffering’ yet you’re not for murder … guess you’d have another name for it instead, maybe ‘avoiding collateral damage’?
There is nothing wrong with wanting to experience the joys of parenthood anymore than there is with not wanting to. I think anyone trying to take a moral high ground on what is ‘better’ is something close to what I would term ‘evil’.
Life without suffering isn’t worth living. You learn that as you mature. I guess some people get carried away with the search for some ‘answer’ or ‘solution’ to life. Again, as you mature you may see past this (I hope so).
I like humanity. I want it to keep going because I believe human life has value, because I make judgements. I’m not particularly compassionate towards nihilists or buddhists (same difference to me).
Sure, this works.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Ah wait, so this negates your claim here, which mentioned nothing of suffering:
Quoting dimosthenis9
And thus, as you see procreation does affect someone in the future. If you can agree that all life has some non-trivial harm, then I don't see how it cannot (does not) follow here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
It seems exactly the same for me too. Just changing names as to present a situation like an unselfish, moral act etc. The outcome remains the same and doesn't seem logical at all.
Yes.
Yet, this is an opinion too. All ethical matters are not empirical, if that's what you are getting at. Nothing will naturally lead to any conclusion on an ethical matter, so you are already expecting the wrong thing from the very form (ethics). This only works if for you all ethics is opinion and never binding. But I doubt you do in cases like murder and such.
Quoting I like sushi
No, that's not what most ANs are claiming, Most ANs understand that once born, life is already going to be compromises of greater harms with lesser harms. Even giving someone a gift might cause some stress somewhere down the line. But ANs usually do make the distinction between creating a life and continuing a life. And in the circumstance of the decision to create a life, here we have a scenario where there was no one to exist to ameliorate or compromise a greater harm with a lesser harm. Here, it is purely creating conditions for SOMEONE ELSE of non-trivial harms.
Quoting I like sushi
This is just some assertion, and not justified. You are vaguely saying that not being able to always be able to enact your preferences is evil. Think of the implications of this. You are trying to twist ANs into something they are not. Rather, ANs are bringing up a point that is often overlooked. Because it is not the usual argument doesn't make it evil. You can say "peculiar" but that is only because it is often counter to the prevailing norms.
Quoting I like sushi
But I would never purposely put someone into suffering and then justify it with "Life without suffering isn't worth living". That itself seems cruel at the least.
How this negates my previous claim? Did I ever mention that parents decision won't affect their future creatures kids? I just say that it is a decision totally in parents hands. And that unborn kid has simple no say on that! So there is nothing immoral in having kids (except in the disease cases we already discussed). Why you see a contradiction here?
When you know the outcome for sure then yes it is wrong to have kids.
But that can't be applied in every situation! With the fear of the potential harm that might happen (or might not) to be deprived of having kids.
As I like sushi mentioned we can't fear of the potential suffering in every step we make, so at the end not making it at all!!
This so obvious to be trivially true. The contention isn't this but whether because something doesn't exist yet, this means you can do anything you want because they don't exist yet. That is exactly what you were implying, don't try to move it to some non-controversial point that the decision is in the parents' hands. Well yeah, of course. Now what?
Quoting dimosthenis9
Um, so now you are not understanding what we just discussed or applying it. We agreed that someone who will be born can suffer non-trivial harms. So we agreed a decision now affects a future person, and can be negative. So why is it permissible to foist non-trivial, unnecessary (doesn't need to happen) harms/suffering on a future person's behalf? You still haven't addressed this but only retreated to a non-controversial points that it is the parents' decision. The fact that it is indeed a decision for someone else should mean more care is taken here, so our are only strengthening my point.
Quoting dimosthenis9
But that's the thing.. we don't need to even know the particular specific outcome. Can we agree that all life has non-trivial harms?
Quoting dimosthenis9
As I said before, there is a distinction between continuing to exist and starting an existence in how a decision is applied. Once we are born, we cannot but help but not worry about every little suffering. Prior to someone's birth, we can absolutely not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms. It is not ameliorating a greater with a lesser harm for that future person, as it would be if they were already born.
If existed before told you I would have to seriously reconsider It.I might end up to the same conclusion again but for sure I would reconsider also the "circumstances" these unborn kids "exist in" and what they are.
But since I don't believe they exist "somewhere else" before yes it doesn't matter at all.
If you agree that that ethics isn’t purely about logic fine by me. I have no issue. If you start killing people I’ll not be o your side. If you state that having children is ‘bad’/‘wrong’ I won’t agree with just as much force.
You have no ground to talk about what is ‘cruel’ because suffering is clearly necessary in life. Sounds like some people expect fluffy pink clouds and chocolate without the pollution and diabetes. I assume it is coming from someone who lacks life experience.
Please consider that life isn’t binary. It isn’t a judgement against a or b, or joy or suffering. They are NOT isolated from each other. An argument against any ‘suffering’ is an argument against any ‘joy’. True enough we are more keyed into avoiding suffering than not, but we weren’t born with wings yet we’ve managed to overcome that obstacle.
That is just an absurd statement.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Like I said before in one earlier post for someone else, if you look the act of having a child only at parent's perspective, you use the unborn potential person as a mean - not an end itself. And that is wrong. Of course the non-existing potential person does not suffer, but if she/he will born to this world she/he most likely will suffer. When having a child it is not only about parents, but first of all it's a decision at someone else's life.
About utilitarianism, your arguments/reasoning seem strongly as utilitarian.
This means nothing at face value. "Not the one.." implies you are castigating me for a position we are debating. Odd.
Quoting I like sushi
You are not addressing the my point which is that ethics can never (as a form) be shown empirically, so it is all opinion with justifications. That doesn't change much other than simply defining ethics.. So move on from the (unnecessary) point that AN is an "opinion". Next.
Quoting I like sushi
You just made a leap so ridiculous, I shouldn't even have to address it. I don't say "logic" isn't used. I said that:
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's all I said. Logic can be employed, but as to whether that logic or conclusion is what is truly "ethical" is not a matter of course of simply applying the logic, as we are clearly demonstrating with our disagreement right now.
Quoting I like sushi
Yet life itself isn't necessary to create on someone else's behalf. Next.
Quoting I like sushi
Wrong and rhetorical ad hom filler. Next.
Quoting I like sushi
That is exactly the Benatarian asymmetry. Indeed, in the decision to create a life, creating joy/happiness seems to not matter as much at all when one can prevent unnecessary, non-trivial suffering. What is good is that someone did not suffer. There is no person not existing who will feel deprived of not experiencing the good, since they indeed do not exist.
Again, back to the ‘possibility’ of harm being portrayed as a greater ‘wrong’/‘bad’. This sounds a lot like having ‘safe spaces’ and all that kind of dangerous nonsense.
No one ‘asks’ to be born because that is impossible. The choice, if it exists, is on the parents.
Maybe one day an antinatalist saviour will be born and convince us all to stop having children. Then I guess the parents of that child would feel a bit hard done by :)
All I can say is you appear to think I’m saying one thing when I am not.
No ‘Next’ so bye bye. I’ll talk to Antinatalist if they respond. I know many here are … not worthy of my time (my judgement). I’m always willing to open the door again briefly though ;)
Maybe we can talk in a year or two. Have fun :) or ‘suffer’ ;)
Wait wait. I don't try to change anything here. Once again : Since something doesn't exist wrote so many times, that then it has absolutely no choice! So not being able to take his answer whether it wants to be born or not doesn't make immoral at all the parents decision to have it! It is totally on parents hands! Since it isn't alive has simply no say on that. What exactly I changed from my original view? Can't follow you here.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So again we will have the same conversation we had 2-3 pages before??I wrote you there all my argument about suffering and happiness. And how I can't accept the way you measure them, and how we think so different that life is a field of suffering etc etc. So you want us to repeat all that again?? Cause it's a potential harm that you can't be sure and the happiness that will bring might be 10times more for example! I just write it again as you not to think that I avoid your question.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You keep insisting on that cause you wanna make a certain outcome out of this! That harm in some lives might be only death (when they end) and nothing else! So you still want these lives not to exist! No your trivial harm argument can never cover all cases. As much hard as you try it simply can't!
Quoting schopenhauer1
So what?? Your view is that in all circumstances that decision should be "no"! And I don't agree at all! It depends on the each circumstance individual and you can never make a" rule " that you always have to decide no in having kids. Sounds totally irrational to me!
You try to gain points here for your arguments jumping to irrelevant conclusions. You don't seem the type of person, as I read other posts you make in general, who would do that on purpose.
But that's how it seems to me here. No your point doesn't get any stronger at all from what I claim. It's totally different.
No it isn't. It's a statement that you simply can't deny.
Quoting Antinatalist
I ensure you I m not at all. Whether you believe it or not.
Quoting Antinatalist
The thing is that you look it only at the "unborn kid's" perspective! And don't care at all about parent's perspective.
Exactly.
Because the debate isn't whether it is the parents choice or not. It is always the parents' choice, of course. The debate is what the parents should do in light of the fact that they would be creating unnecessary, non-trivial suffering. Hence why I asked if you think all life has non-trivial suffering.
Unnecessary here means that there is no greater harm that is being ameliorated with a lesser harm (like compulsory education, vaccines, and other decisions on someone's behalf because they already exist).
Non-trivial here means harms that are over the threshold of things like getting a papercut from someone giving you a $100 or something like that. It is harm or burdens so minimal as to practically not matter.
Quoting dimosthenis9
So this is an important point and why I'm debating! What does it matter if a person who doesn't exist doesn't experience happiness?! Are you not seeing this? What does seem to matter is that someone will not suffer non-trivial and unnecessary harms. This is the basic asymmetry between happiness and harm for something that does not (but could) exist.
Quoting dimosthenis9
If you think that there is no certainty that people will have non-trivial harm, indeed we can stop debating because I think you are being ridiculous. No one leads a charmed life, and if that is a possibility, and we are speaking of likelihoods, how likely is a charmed life .0001 or something like that. You would be intellectually dishonest if you were to hang your argument on the idea that almost all people born will most likely live a charmed life.
Quoting dimosthenis9
It's applying an ethical rule to not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms on people. Prima facie "shock" from it, doesn't affect its import or logic. This is rhetorical fluff and doesn't address any actual point.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You just assert this but don't show how I'm doing this. The only thing close to you trying to justify this is that you think that there is a real possibility for a charmed life (a life without non-trivial harm).
Of course suffering belongs to life, and some suffering may prevent some bigger suffering.
My point is, that when there is no one who has to born, there is no one who has to suffer.
Quoting I like sushi
Maybe you didn´t get it, I used concept "collateral damage" as an ironic way to underline the fact many people don´t care about horrible situations, what come for someone else.
Killing other people is crime against them as sovereign creatures. They have right for their own life.
I find your point of view strange.
Quoting I like sushi
Having a child is a decision for someone else's whole life.
About "better" and "evil", you yourself think your view is better than mine. Is that kind of conclusion - antinatalism is bad - then evil?
I find this very absurd. At the heart of ethical theories, is question what is "good", what is "bad", what is"better" and what is "worse".
Quoting I like sushi
Like I said some suffering is good to prevent some bigger suffering, some suffering could also evolve virtues of a human, but I really hope that you realize that all suffering simply ain´t so good.
Quoting I like sushi
I also believe that human life has value. First of all, I value the human being who lives in this world. Who is thrown in to this world, never been asked if he/she wanted to.
I am an existentialist and antinatalist, and that makes me an antinihilist.
Killing already born person is another example of that.
Self-deceit is easy, you are right about that.
But come on my friend, we did had that conversation at previous pages. The "no happiness experience" values nothing to you compared to potential harm. And with antinatalism it's like you always take for granted that "the unborn kid's" answer would be always a "no" for life! I really can't accept that.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So far I respected you. Even if your arguments sometimes sounded ridiculous to me,i didn't say anything. So don't make me change my mind about you. You talked with many people at this thread so I guess it's normal not to remember what we talked about. Go and check (if you care of course) and you will see that we went through all these issues again!
At the bottom line, the main thing is that you Antinatalists wanna make a rule that :
No kids should be born at whatever circumstance!
Mine is that you can NEVER apply such a rule in all cases! It's impossible and irrational! I don't even support as you noticed that people should have always kids!
I just say that every case is different and you can never make a rule about it!
If your view sounds more fair and rational than mine. It's fine. I don't have anything to add.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again and for last time : I think very very possible a life with muchhhh happiness and little harm(not 0 harm) !
But even with the 0.001 possibility that someone's life harm is only death, your theory doesn't include it at all! A tiny possibility is still always a possibility! But I don't hang my arguments on it as you see.
You measure harm and suffering always heavier! And you see life as an "endless suffering field" as you mentioned.
Told you then that this seems to be the "root" of our disagreement. Cause I don't see life at all the way you do!
Again I repeated it for last time as not to think that I avoid your questions.
My point is that parents perspective is irrelevant in this case, because the possibly upcoming child is who is the one, whose life the decision is made about.
Quoting I like sushi
That´s how people usually think, that it's parents´ choice. But that doesn't make it right.
I care about peoples´ suffering. I wrote you one post, where I touched the problems of mankind. Wars, genocide, famine, sexual abuse, other violence etc.
But my point of view is that even when we somehow can calculate that bringing child into this world will bring more happiness to child´s parents and other people than it cause suffering to the child and other people, it is still wrong because it is a decision for someone else´s life.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Okay, I am not going to argue on that, not on this post at least.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Look at a few lines above.
Made by an already living creature towards a "0",non existing one. And which you can never be sure (even if you had the chance) that" kid's answer" would be always a "no".
Anyway as I told you I almost played all my cards here and feel like I just repeating same things. And in general spamming is one of the main things that bothers me in TPF. So I don't want to feel that I do the same.
As I told you I respect your opinion even if I totally disagree and I depart peacefully.
No, we can not know the potential kid´s answer. Therefore, because the consent is missing - and the stakes are so high, another human´s whole life - we must not reproduce.
Quoting dimosthenis9
So, our views totally differ, but I respect your right to your own opinion and your freedom of speech.
This is where I’m curious. This is stating the obvious. Why are you focused on the ‘suffering’ though? Why do you think this justifies stating it is ‘bad’/‘wrong’ to have children. This really doesn’t make sense to me.
It is the parents choice. It is neither ‘right’ nor ‘wrong’. I can certainly imagine individual situations where circumstances may shift someone’s perspective though.
I understand that at times life seems terrible.
A parent who actually thinks about these things and decides to have a child is taking a risk to some degree. Most/any parents will tell you that they want to better themselves for their child. The child also reaps this benefit. It is more of a win win situation than a use use situation.
It is ‘right’ - in terms of ‘selfish’? I don’t think that measures up tbh. In terms of anthropology and modern society children were certainly ‘used’ to look after parents and such in old age. Child mortality was high too. Do we have the right to bring children into the world … sure, as much as we have the right to walk, pee and eat.
If life is valued/celebrated (as it is by myself and yourself) then I don’t see how arguing that we have an obligation to nurture life as any worse of an argument. I don’t believe either is ‘better’ - so to speak - because I’m some kind of absurdist I guess.
I guess all this boils down to is you must think more people suffer a substantial amount more in their lives than those who don’t AND that such suffering is intrinsically ‘bad’. I admit that last part sounds weird because ‘suffering’ isn’t generally thought of as ‘good’, but I mean something more like the use of suffering to fortify yourself for future misfortunes.
A would imagine if we could do a worldwide survey and ask every single human if they wished they’d never been born we’d find those who said ‘yes’ would likely live in a more ‘privileged’ demographic. Who knows though? I would expect most would prefer to have had a life than none at all.
Why is life valuable is kind of a ouroboros. Absurdism it generally where I go.
Quoting Antinatalist
As stated above. Circumstance will lean people more one way than the other. It isn’t right or wrong, any more than being hungry is right or wrong, it is just the state of affairs of humans living a life. We have moved beyond more, how should I put it, more ‘animalistic’ tendencies … or rather we’ve imbued ourselves with certain psychological restraints. I think, for the most part, we’ve learnt to make life better.
I would like to emphasise that a life without suffering (as stated by someone previously) is more cruel than a life with suffering because life requires hardships and strains, humans basically need to strive forward like Sisyphus in order to inhabit what we loosely refer to as ‘meaning’.
Your new comment above about stakes being so high for a new life. This doesn’t add up if you agree that life is valuable and that suffering is a necessary part of life (from my perspective this doesn’t add up at least).
What stakes are high? The chance of suffering? Suffering is inevitable. Life (you agree?) is valuable. Is the value of life to you determined purely by the amount of suffering involved?
My throw away comment about buddhism and nihilism is an obscure view of mine. Fro what I can tell they are two extremes of the same beast. The nihilist perspective expected more from life and then ended up staring down into the abyss. The ‘buddhist’ (loose term) expected nothing of life and stare out of the abyss. Both essentially view the world through the lens of suffering and pain.
Striving is good. Striving requires ‘suffering’. Life requires suffering. Bringing life into the world is for gods/whatever, we merely exist and strive hoping for more tomorrow. Unfounded hope? Possibly … I’d rather not gamble when the stakes are so high (ie. the ‘value’ I habour in life).
Anyway, thanks for persisting. Not sure if you can offer up much more but hope you surprise me. I’m a pessimist so I’m always happy with what comes my way because I’ve learnt to expect far worse :D
Apparently you don't want to continue the debate with me, but I think this is misguided. If there is inherent suffering, and you have the power to prevent it, you always should when there is no collateral damage at stake (e.g. like not vaccinating someone because it would lead to worse outcomes). Let's say that I am a masochist and I really like pain... Way more than others... Should I be allowed to inflict pain because it's good for them? Of course not. If I want to put myself through pain that's one thing, but to decide that I am the one who decides this for others, is callously overlooking other people's dignity at best and highly cruel at worst. I don't think it even matters if pain is a stochastic phenomenon and some people will have more pain in life than others. I think as a rule, inflicting unnecessary, non-trivial pain on others is all that's needed to be a global antinatalist (no one should procreate, period).
There is no need for someone's supposed "answer" to this question. Rather, not existing deprives no ONE of happiness. Someone was not harmed, THIS is what matters morally. Why am I obligated to bring happy experiences into the world? That would seem odd. Rather, the negative is usually what is morally relevant. I don't necessarily have to give someone my extra candy bar, though it would be nice, but I certainly would be obligated to not cause unnecessary harm like punching them in the gut as I walk by or shoving a candy bar down their throat cause, hey, I think people should like candy bars, and ya know, generally they do!
Quoting dimosthenis9
Honestly, why should I care?
Quoting dimosthenis9
Just saying it, doesn't make it so!
Quoting dimosthenis9
Besides the obvious (creating collateral damage for those who didn't want to be born), again, why would you think it's okay to inflict unnecessary, non-trivial harm on another person? And I can say the same to you, clearly you didn't read my threads where there were very long discussions of how self-reports saying "I like life" would not change the fact that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary, non-trivial harm on other people.. You STILL have not recognized that no one has a charmed life and lives 90+ years of non-trivial harm. Everyone is harmed by existing. That is enough to make AN case true if one agrees with the idea of not inflicting unnecessary non-trivial harm on others' behalf.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Fair enough.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You did previously claim people live charmed lives (their whole life they avoid non-trivial harm) and you seem to continue this, when empirically and anecdotally, I have never seen or heard such a thing.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yes and I explained how harms are morally relevant while bringing-happiness is really not. No one is obligated to make people happy, only not cause others unnecessary, non-trivial harm.
So now you say that there is no need for content in your case. But you need a "yes" as to bring someone in life?? So you want it all your way! Cool!
So it's OK to take a "no" answer granted but not OK to take a "yes" for granted. Nice whatever suits your arguments better.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Don't.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Cause that harm that you keep mention might be way less than happy moments. Who told you that the unborn kid wouldn't want to come to life as to even experience that?? You just suppose that it wouldn't cause that's what fit your arguments better. Well no it's not the case at all though.
Quoting schopenhauer1
To recognize that?! That existing harms everyone!?!Are you serious really??
No way! I would never recognize such a lame statement. Cause you believe life is an endless suffering that doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same!
And at the very end how the fuck you know that in all humanity existence there was not even one person who had that kind of charming life?!?!
The most possible thing is that there have been more than one!! It is statistical impossible not even one to existed!
And I told you that I don't even support my arguments in that extreme cases(which STILL exist though)!!
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's only enough in your mind.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's statistically impossible as not even one case(for sure not only one) to exist throughout humanity's history.
And guess what! Even that rare cases make your theory totally invalid!
Not only that of course, but one more reason that make your position irrational.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You explained and I didn't agree at all. So let's drop it.
I agree with David Benatar with his asymmetry argument. If not having a child will prevent some good to happen for the child, it is neutral. It is not bad, because she/he will not exist. And if somebody will never exist, I can´t see we have obligation as a giving a life for a future possible child. But if someone is going to have a child and her/his life is bad, it is a bad thing and her/his parents are at least partly responsible for that. (I don´t want to mock too much parents, because I believe, after all, most of them want to good things happen for their child. And on the other hand, people are strongly affected by evolution and selfish gene. It doesn´t make having a child right, but those things make it quite understandable).
You might say for that your crossing the road -example. Suffering is part of life, and some choices prevent suffering here and might add suffering there. All suffering ain´t so bad, but some definitely is.
Fundamental difference of having a child and that crossing the road -example is that if it´s your life, cross the road or don´t, but having a child is deciding for other person´s life, without her/his consent.
Other difference is that non-existing creature does not have to make choices between bigger and smaller risks.
Quoting I like sushi
That is natural way to think. But you do not provide very convincing arguments for this. In matter of fact not a one.
Quoting I like sushi
I value life, but it is not just about life, it is highly about the existing, living person who lives that life.
And this existing person is highly valuable.
Quoting I like sushi
If you are right - and let´s exclude human factor, Pollyanna principle, the ultimate empirical non-possibility to compare non-life and life (you can grab this topic if you want, I´ve been thinking about that aspect for three decades) - that sounds utilitarian to me. And I don´t think it´s an ethical theory at all.
Quoting I like sushi
Let´s assume you are right on that. I simply can´t think any cruel acts/things etc., which does not involve suffering, which makes your assertion kind of absurd.
But let´s still assume that I am wrong on that. If you mean some suffering will prevent some other suffering (like a boxer, who will strengthen his/her abdominals that he/she will not tear apart when facing body punches in a real fight).
But that doesn't answer the question, why there have to be life in the first place.
Quoting I like sushi
Stakes are high, when making decision for someone else's life, like I said before.
The suffering is inevitable, I agree with you on that. And some of it is just horrible. I mentioned before that I value life, but an essential factor from which perhaps all value springs is the person existing, the one who lives the life.
Like I said one previous post, I think life can have also negative value (and those, who support euthanasia agree with me on that). But the right to end will belong only to the one who lives, it´s her/his life and other people should respect her/his sovereignty.
At suffering, I don´t value purely by the amount of its suffering; but to some degree it certainly correlates. Essential other factors are how the suffering person reacts to suffering, and how she/he can affect the situation and what are her/his possibilities, and also are there some good, balancing things (I never said that good could not balance the bad to at some degree (to someone who have already born), and the good/bad -balance is different in this kind of situation than having a child, when there have not be the bad in the first place. My point of view is also that preventing harm is greater value than bringing happiness).
Quoting I like sushi
And both live in this world.
Quoting I like sushi
I don´t know am I pessimist, optimist or something between. Maybe I haven't decided yet.
You cannot GET content!! And that's the point of the Benatarian asymmetry (look it up if you have to).. When someone is not born, there is no one to be "deprived" of happiness. Only creating them would create this situation. But what is good is no person is suffering. Yay.
Quoting dimosthenis9
The problem with your argument is no one would be around to be deprived if they weren't born. No one is sitting there feeling deprived in the realm of unborn. However, certainly it is good no one has been harmed, collateral or otherwise.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I didn't say "endless suffering" just that everyone experiences non-trivial harm. Though, yes, I also think (as a less evidentiary case) that burdens and impositions on people are always wrong, even if someone reports that they post-facto were okay with it. I actually consider that as part of the non-trivial harms as there is a force of limited choices which makes "going along with the game" the only option other than suicide or very sub-optimal choices (depredation and free riding). Anyways, that specific example is much more in depth than simply the need to not want to create conditions of unnecessary harm for others. That's all that's needed. That, and understanding that no ONE suffers by not experiencing happiness (if there is no "they" to be born in the first place).
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yep, so you are hanging your argument on this guy?
Quoting dimosthenis9
Even Buddha suffered before Enlightenment :D.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Anyone can agree or disagree with an ethical argument. As my meta-ethical statement said from the beginning... Ethics can never be evidently "right" from simply the course of logic or conclusion. It may be right, but I can never definitively point to it in the universe.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Ah, so looking for that diamond in the rough I see. As long as one case of a charmed life exists, all other unnecessary harm is permissible. Please. Rather this is more your burden in the argument. That is to say, unless every life is charmed, then it would not be permissible. Not even close to that, let alone all.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You didn't explain why happiness is morally obligatory, more so than preventing harm is morally obligatory in this situation of procreation (not after born as that situation may change things). That's your core argument, is it not?
That's exactly what makes it a NO moral matter at all. Cause you expect a content from a Non existing creature! A 0!You just can't do that. Impossible. So it's totally parents choice. And not a moral issue at all. You just can't accept that simple thing.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not even letting kids experience life but to prefer not to start it at all IS bad in my eyes! You deprive them from an amazing experience! Even if you see only suffering in life.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's just one more reason that cancels your theory. Whether you like it or not.
I presented here many others too:
1.the way you measure harm and happiness
2.the harm you create into already living parents by depriving them the joy of having the kid for shake of the "potential" harm of a non existing creature.
3.the irrational outcome of your theory that is to end humanity existence.
4.that the unborn kid has no choice! So it simply isn't a moral matter for parents!!
5.that the unjust issue that you protest giving to someone life without asking him is equalized for me with the suicide option each individual has.
So please please, don't tell me that I just hang my argument there,when your argument is only one. But you know why you insist so much on that latest argument?? Cause these exact rare cases make the ONLY argument that you keep repeating (the non trivia harm one) totally invalid simply!! That's why you stuck in it! Cause it makes it even more obvious how false it is. It exposes it.
Whether you like it or not your only one argument of non trivial is so weak that could never apply and cover all possible cases. Whether you like it or not! Simply can't.
Quoting schopenhauer1
We exchanged all these posts and you still ask me if that's my core argument?? I wrote you for last time above some of my already presented arguments.
Sorry I can't add anything else into that discussion. I feel we keep repeating the same things. It doesn't make sense anymore. So I am out . Thanks for your time.
We already covered this. If the parent was choosing to have a child in a known horrible condition, is this permissible? of course not. Not all morality is off the table because a person does not exist yet. What you can't accept is there is an asymmetry for that future child. A harm is prevented which is good, whether it exists or not. The fact that someone could have been harmed but was not, is the moral act. The fact that someone could have experienced happiness but did not, matters not. Harm is always what matters for the moral decision. We are not obligated to make happy people from scratch.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You deprive no one from nothing. You don't get that? No one is deprived, that is the point. Deprived happiness seems to depend on someone existing to care. Prevented harms though seems to be universally a good thing. In other words, harm seems to be weighted more than happiness in procreative moral decisions. Not having happiness is NEITHER good nor bad (if a person is not around to be affected by the deprivation). Not having unnecessary, non-trivial harm is ALWAYS good (even if there is no person affected.. the very fact of prevented harm is good).
Quoting dimosthenis9
Does it matter if someone gets happiness from something that unintentionally or ignorantly is creating harms for others? Happiness derived from (even ignorant understanding of) someone else's harm, is not an excuse to cause the harm.
Quoting dimosthenis9
As someone else was saying, humanity is not a target for morality, other actual persons are.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Creating situations of harm for others forces the situation to be a moral one. At least, if not "moral" than value-based.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I am actually not presenting the consent theory though I support it too. So, I think your suicide idea is the worst excuse actually. It's like forcing someone into a game and then saying, "You can always kill yourself!" (cue maniacal laughter).
Quoting Antinatalist
Maybe I only understand the surface details. On the surface it looks overly simplistic. I'm even slightly convinced by it. If you could indulge me and explain it further than the not this then x not that then y (or is that all there is to it? I hope not).
I'm interested by your view of what 'consent' means here. All living people can kill themselves. Non-existing people cannot choose to exist nor can they argue for 'lack of consent' because they don't exist. You come to exist by the acts of others (right or wrong doesn't seem to have much of a place here does it?). Once you're born you are nurtured and grow, without consent. I do think children should be given more freedom to choose when younger (specifically in education), but this would have to be a global phenomenon so in actuality such a revolution in education would be hard to impliment (not that I'm against attempts ... even though they may very well lead to worsening the situation).
Anyway, you seem to have a different use of the term 'consent'. If you can explain further it might help. I don't see how 'consent' has any application to things/people that don't exist. Neither do I think parents ask for consent to raise their children ... that would be quite strange.
Quoting Antinatalist
As stated above you'll have to explain how you're using 'consent' for a non-existing being? It doesn't make sense to me. Also, non-existing creatures don't have to make choices implies they can make choices. They cannot make choices. Subtle aspects of language can sneak in unsuspecting ideas without notice (the two meanings of 'don't have to' is one of these cases). I assume you meant cannot btw but such things can make a difference to someone's perspective :)
Quoting Antinatalist
I'm not here to present any argument to say that bring life into the world is 'better'/'good'. It's your position that's up for debate right? I have discussed ethics elsewhere with points I find to be of more import. I've yet to be convinced this is a matter of much import to my view but I'm intrigued.
Quoting Antinatalist
Sounds like you're refusing to call an Orange an Orange and instead refer to it as a Round Fruit. I fnot I don't quite get this. I'm not trying to catch you out just want to understand what these terms mean for you. What is the difference between a person existing and a person living? Is a person living more important than a bird or plant living? Do those questions matter to your position? (if not ignore).
Regarding Pollyanna principle I do have some thoughts there but they're based on empirical evidence and neurological studies.
Basically we know that humans are 'wired' to be optimistic. We also have good evidence (psychological not neurological last time I looked) that we feel worse about loss more than we feel about a gain - hence humanity's general aversion to 'loss'. I think these items kind of do something to balance out our attitudes towards ideas/concepts ot 'pleasure'/'pain'.
Note: referring back to David Benatar I'd have to grasp his use of the terms 'pain' and 'pleasure'. I think viewing something as 'absence' of is perhaps related to the above^^
You've mentioned 'utilitarian' twice in quick succession now. You have problems with that perspective? If so what are they (beyond the obvious)?
Quoting Antinatalist
For reference ASSUME I am right that it is neither right nor wrong. If that is the assumption there is no argument is there? To be clear I view 'right' and 'wrong' as situational. Sitting on a chair could be right or wrong (highly) in various situations and extremities. By choosing, or through happenstance, we 'have' children I don't see this as starting from a position of justification. the justification comes in the choice to have children or in the choosing not to have a child that is expected/possibility in the future.
I have no issue with questioning the why/how/what of the sitiuation. It is not a one size fits all thing though. I would not travel back in time and tell some peasant to have less children to avoid burdening their offspring with pain and suffering and to suffer more themselves in the longrun in both terms of personal and family striving (not necessarily 'happiness' which is certainly a whole other topic worthy of consideration ... I just find 'happy' to be a little off). I'm sur eyou're familiar with De Botton in this area. He has some nice ways of conveying these things, but I'm not by any means completely in agreement with everythign he says.
WHy we have life in the first place? I don't think it is a 'why?' question tbh. In the same light I don't understand the 'why?' in the 'consent' and having childrenfalls into the 'why?' category either. All questions are 'what?' underneath. Reframing such 'whys' as 'whats' in numerous ways can help pick apart the underlying mechinations .. sometimes! :D
Quoting Antinatalist
Before they are born they have no life. Bringing a life into the world doesn't require what we colloquially refer to as 'consent'. This seems to be a running theme so I'll wait for your explanation of 'consent' in the terms you mean it to be used.
Quoting Antinatalist
Agreed. But again ... there are 'cirumcstances' that can alter these things. I'm not for a one size fit sall attitude. The individual case is, correct me if I'm wrong, far more important than a universal 'law' for singular people (ie. killing someone in a crazed murderous frenzy for the sake of saving others is not 'bad' but it doesn't make killing 'good'). My ethical view is about the unwilling need to explore the extreme fringes of our natures, but it is dangerous so I am not impelled to 'recommend' it for any/everyone.
Quoting Antinatalist
To what degree does a newborn possess 'sovereignty'? In terms of consciousness and being a fully enough fledged human being? Again, this is certainly where the whole abortion debarcle emits something wonderful about humanity. We care about it - right or wrong - and that is human. I like humans ... mostly on an individual basis though :D
Quoting Antinatalist
Good. And I agree. It is a singular perspective to consider amoungst others. I'm inclined - for various manifest reasons - to favour some perspectives over others and undoubtedly delude myself to some degree ... such is life :) Currently here guarding against delusions but not because delusions are necessarily 'bad' I just favour lessening them to some healthy degree ... I hope! ;)
Quoting Antinatalist
I don't see the intrinsic difference between reduction of 'pain' and reduction of 'happiness' ... (see above: I await your explanation, but at least I think we've found a major point of confusion!).
I will quote David Benatar:
[i]"Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
Benatar raises four other related asymmetries that he considers quite plausible:
We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why we think there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that the presence of this suffering would be bad (for the sufferers) and the absence of the suffering is good (even though there is nobody to enjoy the absence of suffering). By contrast, the reason we think there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although their pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create them, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create them. That the child may be happy is not a morally important reason to create them. By contrast, that the child may be unhappy is an important moral reason not to create them. If it were the case that the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, then we would have a significant moral reason to create a child and to create as many children as possible. And if it were not the case that the absence of pain is good even if someone does not exist to experience this good, then we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child.
Someday we can regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created them – a person can be unhappy and the presence of their pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create them – a person will not be deprived of happiness, because he or she will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people come into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people did not come into existence in a place where there are happy people. When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is not someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when someone exists to be deprived of this good."[/i]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar)
Quoting I like sushi
I think we use the term ´consent´ quite similar, but my point of view is that when we can´t get it, cause in this case is about unborn child, we should not then have a child. When a child is already born, it is very different situation. There is somebody, whose well-being some non-consent act are needed.
Quoting I like sushi
I don´t think this - non-existing creatures don't have to make choices - implies they can make choice; you are right, they can not.
Quoting I like sushi
A person living is a person existing. Perhaps it is just my poetic(?) way to underline that at life the person who lives is more important than his life itself, as strange as may seem when you first time hear thing like that. And I mean for this, that life could be horrible for the person who is living that life. In my point of view a bird is important, but living human being is more important - you can disagree on that, and you might have some good arguments against mine. I don´t consider plant as important as human or bird, because it isn´t sentient being.
Quoting I like sushi
I largely agree, although pessimist seem to be more realistic than optimists, in general.
Quoting I like sushi
Trivial example of utilitarian philosophy is when we can have 10 000 pleasure points, when some sadistic people are torturing some other people, but their miseries outcome is only 9999 suffering points. The outcome is positive, so then it is morally right to torture those people.
Quoting I like sushi
Like you might seen, I find this choice to have a child problematic.
Quoting I like sushi
I don´t agree, although I think I´ve heard this before. One physicist spoke at same thing at some lecture years ago, if I can remember correctly. Human differs from most animals, if not all, that she/he can ask "why?" . Of course there is "whys" and "whys", some could say that in the beginning materia and antimateria fought each other and materia won, and because of that Tampa Bay Buccaneers won Super Bowl 2021. Sounds very fatalistic. I have a very different kind of view. I don´t think there are any physical laws that human beings have to exist. It just happened.
Quoting I like sushi
I agree.
Quoting I like sushi
I think newborn has sovereignty as like any other already born human being. Of course we can continue probably there, what is the time when a foetus is sovereign human being - if ever; but that is a matter of another topic.
Quoting I like sushi
I touched the subject in the "utilitarianism example" in this post.
I'll get to this all tomorrow. Late here now. For now I'll just say that I'd find it hard to believe the mainstream utilitarian point of view here is that 10,000 people 'happy' exempts 9,999 being tortured. I'm pretty sure you can at least agree that 10,001 people 'happy' and 9,998 is superficially 'better' than the above. They are at least different.
Given that there are no quantifiable units of such things it is merely a hypothetical to explore the ethics lying underneath (like with the previously mentioned 'Utopian' society where the happiness of all depends on the condensed suffering of one.
In the above I'd rather we all carry the burden of suffering than pile hell on one individual. The question then morphs into something entirely more dark and gruesome with progressive speed when you seriously start to ask yourself 'how many would need to suffer?' and 'to what degree?' - this is likely closer to what you're getting at.
Anyway, leave that until later if you can or respind briefly please so I can get back the Benatar bit ...
Dostoevsky and Ursula K. Le Guin have addressed this issue, and I think they both have great point in their texts.
Quoting I like sushi
Alright.
NOTE: Anyone else reading these are NOT quotes from Antinatalist they are from David Benatar.
I'll break it down best I can ...
Quoting Antinatalist
Why not absence of either is impossible in life? Why not 'the absence of either pleasure or pain is not bad'? The absence of pain/pleasure is a given in a non-existing individual. Also, lacking pleasure is not exactly what I'd call 'not bad' if the opposite argument is that lacking pain is 'good'.
Let us view this differently ... less pain is better and less pleasure is worse. I think we can all agree with that.
So we can see that the 'ethical conclusion' (a nonsense term in my view for the most part) of favouring non-procreation is based on premises set up from a biased position, or rather a singular perspective.
The conslusion I come to from the opening paragraph is that existence is bad. You said you didn't believe that so you're probably not convinced by this kind of antinatalism in reality (do doubt there are various sectionings of this philosophical position?).
Quoting Antinatalist
The above is purely based of what I consider to be singular and unconvincing premises. If the foundation is flawed the conclusion is not going to be of any use. The process can be interesting though so I'll follow it through ...
For starters, why does he assume we're morally obliged to 'create' people without pain and suffering yet doesn't think we're morally obliged to 'create' happy people? That seems like a cognitive bias to push forward his unfounded conclusion. As an opinion it doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny yet.
It looks like he's saying gray is more black than white.
Quoting Antinatalist
Why? Because he says so? I think the mental hoodwinking going on here is confusing 'degrees' of pleasure and pain with some imaginary absolute.
As I stated previous less pleasure is bad and less pain is good. A lack of either, or will to lack either, is where nihilism and what I frame as 'buddhist mentality' collide. They are in denial of existing and or against existence - and often abstain from any idea of free will too. We can see this is the end of the sentence above where non-existence is placed above existence. And as I've stated a lack of 'pleasure' is bad in my eyes just as 'pain' is bad (using the terms in the broadest sense here rather than bothering with gettin into all that).
Quoting Antinatalist
FIrst question here is why? If we have a moral obligation to a potential child surely we need to take into account what the life of such a child could be like and how readily armed we believe we are to 'give them' (probably better to say, 'set them up for') a life they won't wish they'd ever lived. Nothing 'strange' there?
Maybe he is just referring to how people generally consider the responsibility of having children here? If so considering the downfalls isn't a steadfast peice of evidence for his argument. For people who enjoy life they wish to share it. Who better to share this perspective with than a new life. Makes perfect sense.
As previously stated we know that humans are overly optimistic in one sense yet there is pretty good evidence that we are, to put it simply, more 'loss adverse' than 'gain seeking'. It might be too much of a leap for some to parallel this with 'pain' and 'pleasure' as those are very loaded terms. In the realm of this discussion though I think it is more than worth consideration.
Next bit is a willful ignorance of 'worse'/'better' in favour of monadic 'good'/'bad' concepts ...
Quoting Antinatalist
Why? The absence of either means no more humans. I have no qualms with humanity to the point where I'd wish the existence of humanity away merely because I don't understand the ins and outs of the universe at large.
If there is no one to experience it then ... well, it's a pointless discussion that we cannot have because we're existing/living. Just like I cannot think outside of myself I cannot think outside of existence. These are quite basic principles in mainstream philosophy ... or so I thought :D
Quoting Antinatalist
NO NO NO! The presence of pain is a given. No one can live a life absent of pain. The presence of pain means they live. the DEGREE of pain is the moral issue being avoided here from what I can tell. This likely because when you dig in far enough some extrememly disturbing truths surface and most sane people shun them.
eg. How many people would you kill to save 1 million strangers? Let us assume such and such a person thinks one, then we shift the question about torturing them to death over decades ... would we rather kill two instantly than torturing one for decades?
The point being here NOT to make public statements about these kind of thoughts but to get to the most honest heart of yourself about how and what you feel about this then try to draw some loose conclusions from it.
You will hopefully find that all life is equal is not where you go at the end of the day. I'm not of the camp that not all lives are worth living (who am I to say!), but I readily accept that some lives must, almost certainly, be more worth living than others. Given that we only ever get to appreciate such a question at or aroundb our demise with any real kind of perspective - and an extrememly limited singular one - passing universal judgements over what lives are and aren't worth living seems quite naive/perverse. THAT is literally the only opening for an antinatalist doctrine I can establish, but it is far from convincing for all the above points made and many more I've not gotten into yet.
Quoting Antinatalist
Sounds like cowardice diguised as moral dignity. Shirking any ounce of responsibility towards others is just that. I'm not going to offer to help that person in the street because I might cause them harm ... this is precisely where an item common;ly referred to as 'wisdom' comes into play. I think the ancient Greeks did pretty well in marking out the grounds about 'bravery,' foolhardy' and other such psyhcological categories of human behaviour.
Abstaining is all too often pedestalled as moral. I don't buy it. Also, as mentioned by others as an argument about a purely 'parental spective' the above is extremely selfish in terms of avoiding responsibility. you may very well be 'dripriving a possible human of happiness' but this is somehow okay in balanced to 'depriving them of pain' ... just silly imo.
Quoting Antinatalist
Nope! We do, we just don't tend to consider it because it isn't a day to day thought. I'm sure many couples who've experienced miscarraiges would quite clearly state that the above is nonsense. We can also, I'm sure, appreciate that when someone we know has died (no longer 'existing') we wish they could 'be there for this/that'.
You could well argue that these people 'existed' but I'm not sure how this works for a miscarriage as that is more or less the idea of someone coming to exist. For those dead it is similar in that they did exist but don't any longer, so it is a 'potential' (albeit an unrealistic 'potential').
Quoting Antinatalist
Why is this 'good'? Is the assumption that they merely suffered and died? No mention of 'pleasure' here for reasons unknown. Again, there is a DEGREE of these things. Would we wish away the potential existence of someone alone on a desert island who lived a rather ordinary life on the beaches waking up in morning, fishing and dancing around a fire at night merely because they suffering hardships and pain (physical and mental)? That said it is of course VERY easy to pass a quick judgement if the proposed scenario is painted as 'Born and suffered excruciating pain non-stop for several decades before dying in even more agony'.
As a little aside 'pleasure' can be painful too. A rather horrible tale about a study where elderly people in a home were given more volunteer visitors for month. Their well-being and sense of 'happiness' when through the roof. A follow up study though showed that for some time after (once they didn't have so many visitors) that overall the sense of well-being plummetted. They didn't know what they were missing, so when it was taken away they felt worse of for it.
I find that interesting because this a little parallel reversal of arguments for antinatalism mentioned by some here. Would they be better of without such 'pleasure'? Do we measure in a 'utilitarian sense' amounts of pleasure against pain. I'm not saying one or the other just pointing out how easily such views for one side of a position can be used against it. Plus, this is a singular situation of a myriad of human experience and life.
In conclusion ...
Quoting Antinatalist
I'm disappointed that that is all David Benatar has. Someone can exist to be 'deprived of good' yet the thought of tyhem existing to be 'deprived of bad' is wholly ignored as well as th edegree to which said potential persons will experience and deal with 'pleasure' and 'pain'.
To sum up, the absence of either pleasure or pain is not a life and therefore to draw comparisons of a life purely 'painful' or purely 'pleasureable' is irrelevant AND a complete fantasy that makes so actual realistic sense. It seems like something has happened here that many scientists try hard to guard against. That is to have an idea then search for evidence to back it up.
What this has hopefully revealed more clearly is the problems surrounding any 'measurements'/'categories' of 'pleasure'/'pain' and what exactly these terms can/could mean in various different perspectives.
Broadly, when it comes to 'ethics,' I'm instantly suspicious of any/all ethical 'conclusions'. If we don't question and scrutinise our principles I don't see what use they are to us at all. Otherwise such 'principles' are like dead limbs we drag around and use to abstain more any sense of PERSONAL repsonsibility amoung/within/without the 'world' (weltenschuuang) at large.
So Antinatalist, can we perhaps get into how 'degrees' fits in here or is this entire antinatalist vie wbased solely on a hypothetical rigid extremity?
Is there anything I've said that is unclear? Do you have a harder position to put forward - perhaps in your own words with more nuance that those of Benatar?
Thanks either way :)
What are they?
In addition to my long scrawl ...
If there is some underlying 'measurement' of subjective pain vs pleasure then someone somewhere in human history someone has/will suffer more pain than anyone else, and vice versa the same is true for pleasure. Was such 'pain'/'pleasure' inevitable OR has/will humanity find a way to nurture the latter more and more in the future whilst reducing the later ... AND (most importantly!) if we have done/did this would we even know it?
Too much is unknown about the future life of one's child, and too much is out of the control of the parents. The outcome is a matter of chance, therefore it cannot be considered a moral act, but at the same time I cannot conisder an act immoral if it wasn't done with malicious intention.
Quoting Antinatalist
I´ve referred before to Le Guin´s The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas). I think Dostoyeski brings some real heavy issue in The Brothers Karamazov. This is just one quote from Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov, there are many perhaps much more impressive points, buI don’t have the original novel on hand:
“Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It’s quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer, and why they should buy harmony with their suffering.”
(https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/brothersk/quotes/page/2/)
I will answer more completely a little bit later, but I ask you one question.
Do you think is more ethical to have a child than give euthanasia for some healthy human being, who just one time asks it (and that´s just all you know about that person)?
And if it is, why so?
Creating conditions for unnecessary, non-trivial harms for others is wrong (or negligent). From here, as long as we agree on the terms, AN has good footing to stand on. Coupled with this idea is Benatar's argument that harm is indeed more important to consider in procreation decisions. He relies on our own intuitions. For example, we seem to care more if people are suffering on deserted planets than we would care that "No one exists to be happy!". It seems to be neutral, not really worthy of moral consideration, to have no happy people. It does seem to be "bad" to have unhappy or suffering people, however.
I'm not really into some 'ethic law' so to speak. That aside, as stated before, it would depend on individual circumstances. That is the crux of it. Universal ethics is not realistic and is usually found buried in mass religious circles.
Not to avoid the hypothetical (if I was in a position to force open over the other) then I'd say having a child is 'better'. Here it is based almost entirely on reason though. The child doesn't exist so isn't suicidal, yet the person wishing to die (with no knowledge of the situation) is more than likely just in a depressive slump because that is more common than someone actually deciding to end their life due to severe illness or because they've reasoned that they are better off dead for whatever reason.
Remember though, I don't view this anything like you do and have seemingly very different impressions and experiences of what 'happy,' 'pain,' 'pleasure,' 'ethics' and such terms mean.
Which reminds me, did you come up with some criteria to distinguish the two? So far you've just given examples. If someone were to say that life is a trivial harm, or not a harm at all, why would they be wrong?
Quoting schopenhauer1
As long as we agree that life is a non-trivial harm. Which is precisely what most people disagree with you on.
I'll answer you more fully later, but realize we are going to disagree on criterion. You will say that it's a summative report that only counts. I will say that the experiences in real time have to be considered.
Also keep in mind that no objective criterion is needed for the logic the axiom. Non-trivial can be subjective, but it would have to be understood that all human life will have subjectively non-trivial harm.
As long as we are understood that my more speculative ideas on objective harm are not even necessary for the claim to work, then I will entertain your question. The minute you try to use it as a cudgel against the primary argument, I will call bad faith debate as you are now crossing over as we agreed we would not do.
I will pretend to think that summative reports and experiences don't count. That's exactly why I asked you to find a criteria that doesn't rely on these reports. I could've just said "Disagreed. Only the report matters" but I'm trying to understand how you can evaluate these things without the report, or the experience.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But there is a very crucial difference here. "Will have non-trivial harm" is not a sufficient condition for making something wrong, nor is that your argument as I understand it. It has to be a non-trivial harm overall. I will agree to:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I won't agree that having children is non-trivial, unnecessary imposition. You must show that using whatever your criteria is.
I thought we agreed that as long is all that was needed was subjective, non-trivial harm.
It does not follow from this that having children is wrong.
It will only be wrong if imposing life was subjectively non trivial.
You can only determine whether or not life is a non trivial imposition once you have a criteria that separates trivial from non trivial.
That’s the criteria I want to know. Doubly so since supposedly it doesn’t rely on the subjective evaluation at all.
No, what I meant was, all we needed to agree on is that all life has subjectively non-trivial harm for it to be valid in this case.
Quoting khaled
Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you think that all life experiences subjective non-trivial harm? If so, why wouldn't that be an example of the former? You keep going to the objective when I have said from earlier that it works just as fine from subjective as long as you think at some point people experience non-trivial subjective harm.
I wrote in my original text:
"However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person."
But this fact, it could be a better option than non-being, does not justify the act of having a child.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
There underlies the fact that somebody not existing has no needs, so absence of good is not a bad thing. It perhaps is not a "good" thing, but at least it is a neutral thing. Absence of bad is good even if there is nobody enjoying it. Presence of bad is bad, that will be quite clear. I don´t understand how you don´t get this.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
Do you really think that way?
Theodor Adorno once said:
“It would be advisable to think of progress in the crudest, most basic terms: that no one should go hungry anymore, that there should be no more torture, no more Auschwitz. Only then will the idea of progress be free from lies.”
? Theodor W. Adorno
What does this mean? What are the consequences of that "no more Auschwitz"?
I once thought "pro life, pro concentration camps". I was wrong, it was just a thought - and I didn't thought that way deep inside me. But I was at least partly right at that thought.
But still, what is the only sure way to prevent things like Auschwitz ever to exist? It is to stop procreating. When there is no life, there are no concentration camps.
That sounds extreme. And I´m the first to admit, it is. It is extreme. But that is the only sure way to prevent horrors of Auschwitz and other horrors like it.
I don´t see any thing, which are perceived as enjoyable, happy etc could ever balance the badness of Auschwitzes.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
We are living now. We can make decisions for the future. And we know the pain and pleasure are things the possible upcoming child is most likely to face. I surely can think of a universe without human beings, and a universe without life at all.
About that what Benatar says about what is strange and what is not when discussing the purpose of having a child, I´m not sure about that. Perhaps it is the way people usually state their reasons. But most likely, I think, is so as Benatar has argued, someone who doesn´t exist, does not have interests. But again, if the child is born, she/he then have interests/needs.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
This is one thing - "The presence of pain means they live" - agree on, at least.
Quoting I like sushi
These are the things we have to deal with, when there is human life. When there is not, we don´t have to. My view is antinatalistic, not pro-mortalist. I am in favor of voluntary extinction. You yourself don´t favor absence of bad over presence of good. Some people - if not most - want to blame antinatalists with all kinds of accusations, but your view on life sounds kind of terroristic. To sacrifice some people for Greater Good.
Quoting I like sushi
Antinatalism can be grounded on Kantian ethics or negative utilitarianism, at least.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. It is a very different case, when someone is already born and living in this world. On cowardness, I'm pretty sure I find it more on natalists, natalism is, after all, far more socially acceptable ideology than antinatalism. As an antinatalist, you are a rebel. And not that kind of "rebel" you find on mainstream movies or some MTV videos, which were watched when I was young.
Quoting I like sushi
As a matter of fact it is not depriving anything for anybody, because there is nobody existing.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
Miscarry could be tragic, but those who we see suffering from it are usually the parents of the potential child. It is more about the expectations of the parents than missing the life of the possible upcoming child.
Quoting I like sushi
If you try to attack the asymmetry argument, the different situation for your example above, is that in your example there are living people, who could feel the loss of something good and possibly feel grief from that.
Quoting I like sushi
Like I said before, my antinatalism is grounded on the fact that having a child is a decision for someone else´s life, whose consent we can not have. The fact that consent is impossible to have, doesn´t make the decision right. It is a decision for someone else´s whole life, it is not a trivial "cross a road or not" kind of decision.
I´m an antinatalist, not pro-mortalist. And even when I live happy, enjoyable life, I don´t think I have right to reproduce. Am I happy or not, is irrelevant for this decision.
Yes, I have to check your previous threads.
I wrote on my original text:
"Let us assume that an adult human being seems to outsiders in their right minds to be willing to die and to clearly and unambiguously state “Kill me!” Is this sufficient justification for killing this human being?
Juridically surely not, but what about ethically?
In my opinion, NO. I believe that a vast majority of people hopefully agrees with my view (even though this is no basis for justifying the value of the action).
Nonetheless, in the above example case, the actor has more information on the tendencies of the object of the action than in the example on bringing about life – i.e. in the active deed that aims at creating a new human being, a child. Hence, there is some information available on the desires and intentions of the object of "mercy killing". As for the object of conception, there is no information available on the desires of the (forthcoming) individual. This is also true in the likely case of the (intended) object of the action not existing yet. The fact that it is impossible to have this information when creating new life (having a child) does not change our diverging epistemic attitudes in any way.
Hence, we cannot know whether it is better to be than not to be."
Neither does it not justify the act of having a child. It's not an argument just an empty statement about something we don't know.
Quoting Antinatalist
I get it. I just think it is a very blinkered view and ignore that the opposite position is equally as 'justified'. Why don't you see the absence of pleasure as bad is the key point here. You've not answered probably because you cannot. Neither have you responded to the lesser or larger degree position because you can happily avoid it by jumping to the complete absence of either with some imaginary non-existing person. Mental hoodwinking yourself doesn't mean it will work on me.
Quoting Antinatalist
Do I really think that less 'pleasure' is bad and less 'pain' is good? Of course, who doesn't!?
The only reason you may not is because of the rather slippery terms 'pleasure' and 'pain' which I've previously stated I'm not exactly comfortable with using in this given context as they are far too broad and open to multiple interpretations.
Quoting Antinatalist
You sound like a 'utilitarian'. Irony?
Quoting Antinatalist
They will certainly face both. It is not merely 'likely'. Speaking personally I've felt more positive about life than not overall. I understand 'pain' is necessary and I'm not bitter about it any more than I'm angry at the Sun for rising everyday without my express permission (because such would be plain silly).
And no you cannot anymore than you can imagine what bat thinks because you cannot think outside of your own head so don't fool yourself into thinking you can. We are unable to think of nothing in any pure sense - that is actually something Kant pointed out.
Quoting Antinatalist
And so is the presence of 'pleasure' because they are essentially the same item on a spectrum. Why on earth you decide to focus on the 'given' nature of 'pain' over 'pleasure' you'll have to figure out for yourself.
Quoting Antinatalist
Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. You stated you are not this though so I'm puzzled why you carry the fight for an argument you don't fully agree with - an argument that at it's heart is completely nonsensical.
The only value it has is to instill a question in people about the responsibility people have for themselves and others. Generally though, those putting the argument forward do a terrible job of making this clear and/or resort to pure logic and ignore the subjectivity of such matters.
Quoting Antinatalist
I get it. I just strongly disagree with it because it is a myopic view. I am NOT saying having children is better than not, I'm saying we have literally no way of coming to any reasonable conclusion one way or the other. We know we do what we do and nature is nature. Beyond that we're essentially along for the ride. Judging that lack of pain is better than a lack of pleasure is the heart of the argument. It will remain a purely subjective one from any individual perspective.
The main point is that there is no conclusive evidence either way but by all means go ahead and think what you want. I am inclined to care about HOW you think not really WHAT you think. By this I mean if you cannot argue against your own beliefs then you've missed something.
Doubt is our saviour not rigid reason or ethical drivel.
Regarding bravery. Being a rebel does not equate to brave. Bravery is facing a fear - ie. having a child and excepting the responsibility that entails rather than avoiding it due to fear - bravery would be to willingly do the right thing regardless of the personal harm it causes to you AND, in a purer sense, to do so without any other person's knowledge of what you'd done.
The above is where my interest in ethics lies. Everything everyone says about any ethical issue is mostly hollow and empty. Meaning no matter what we say in the public sphere we cannot escape the ego and self-hoodwinking involved. We cannot explore the really gritty and dark sides of ourselves in the public eye because it is shunned. The best we can do is throw out certain hypotheticals and encourage people to play with them and make them into their own personal monstrosities. Again, the benefit is enormous BUT so i sthe risk. The question remains how on earth we can make any kind of judgement about what is going too far and what is too little. This is PRECISELY where the dualistic items of 'pain' and 'pleasure' presented in this thread come into fruitition.
Quoting Antinatalist
Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.
Quoting Antinatalist
I think I'll call the aboive clutching at straws because it doesn't make any sense. Check you've not talked yourself into a corner please. Just for the record I have experienced this personally but didn't want to divulge that to avoid vapid sympathy. And I do think from time to time about what someone who never exists misses out on (and I'm not talking about 'pain').
note: Benatar said people don't do this. Probably because he doesn't? I cannot blame him for being lazy I guess. It is what it is.
Quoting Antinatalist
I didn't attack it. I just dismantled it with ease.
If you wish to imagine a world of non-existing people as an argument do ahead and fool yourself. His point boils down to absence of pain is better than the presence of pleasure (with no explanation that of substance). Your argument has now done the nihilistic/buddhist trick of over stating none of it really matters if no one can be around to experience ... so fucking what? I'll tell you! Then the whole 'ethics' of it is utterly redundant ... that isn't a reasonable argument so there is in fact NO argument to be had here. We may as well argue that green smells better than red in midsummer when the kettle is flying east.
The position is that (Benatar) pain bad and pleasure not good enough. The first step toward nihilism/buddhism. The first step towards denying repsonsibility, having excemption from your actions and giving up your will to do anything about anything. It is cowardice AND it is a cowardice we HAVE TO dip into at some point in our lives in order to carrying the wonderul/scary burden of existing with aplume.
Quoting Antinatalist
Well then, it's a pretty unstable grounding don't you think? You are happy to talk about living people when it suits and understand perfectly well that non-existing items don't exist, yet you say 'consent' is required for something that doesn't exist? That is complete nonsense!
There is no 'consent' and that doesn't make the decision right or wrong, good or bad. Why on earth do you insist that it can be right or wrong? I'm sure your answer will go along the lines of 'because of pain,' to which I could just keep repeating myself by saying what about 'pleasure' and the almost certain fact that the vast majority of people living are quite capable and excepting of the fact that life is not just a happy go lucky experience of eternal bliss. Shit happens, and that's not the end of the world beleive it or not. Some people will have more misfortune than others, but that is just entropy at work it is NOT a valid reason to cut away the pleasure of one because of the pain of another when both of these items are one and the same thing at heart.
You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure.
That I could understand. Any and everything else you've said doesn't add up, presents a one-sided argument, or just contradicts itself. I like contradictions though :) They are usually where the meat is.
Thansk again. I think I'm done here. Hope you have got something from this
bye bye
Yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What "former"? You mean this argument?
Quoting khaled
It doesn't work for the same reason that "non trivial harm exists in sending people to school" =/= "sending people to school is wrong". It isn't sufficient for a non-trivial harm to exist due to an imposition, it has to also be the case that the imposition caused that in its entirety.
If you had a time machine and discovered that by sending someone to school, that person will one day be late for school, try to jump the fence, and break their arm. Assume there is no way of changing this, if they go to school, they are fated to breaking their arm due to being late at one point. Breaking an arm is a non-trivial harm, agreed? Does it now become wrong to send them to school?
I'd say no, because although it is the case that they will break their arm, it wasn't purely because of going to school. The imposition of having to go to school was a very small reason as to why they broke their arm. The main reason was because they were late.
Similarly, you have to show that the imposition of life itself, IE requiring food, water, and a couple more things, is itself non-trivial, not just that it can lead to a non-trivial harm when combined with other factors.
By your system, it would be wrong to have children even in a utopia where suffering is a choice. Because you don't know whether or not the next person will choose to suffer a non-trivial harm or not, and so their life could contain non-trivial harm, so it's wrong to impose. Basically any imposition becomes wrong, no matter how benign, simply because there is a chance it contributes to a non-trivial harm.
No that's not what the major premise.. You know it by now. Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? I'll add in conditions of unnecessary harms if you need it.. Now we are going back to really inane arguments from Benkei days of "causation" versus conditions for all causations of harm :roll:. Just widen the "container" of what creates the harms.. But please please let's not rehash this one, or at least we should re-read that whole line or argument from that Benkei AN thread from months ago...
Quoting khaled
Ok, I see a little bit where you are going here.. I don't think it's quite the same causation issue that Benkei argued..
This simply doesn't get around the idea of non-trivial harm that is subjectively experienced/evaluated. You seemed to agree, even if for the sake of argument, that this could be the case. Even if I don't give you a criteria for objective harm (because no one would "see" its validity), it works as long as all humans experience subjectively non-trivial harm.
110% agreed in all situations ever.
Now. By what standard shall we determine what a non-trivial unnecessary imposition is?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then no. This would make literally any imposition wrong. Because literally anything can be a condition of unnecessary harm. I can't give someone a gift because by stopping them I could be resulting in them getting into a car accident later. In that instance the gift was a condition for the accident, as the accident wouldn't have happened without it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Can you please just write what you mean? Instead of arguing that this is better than that which is better than the latter which is worse than the former?
What exactly is it that I seem to agree to?
Quoting schopenhauer1
So, you understand that "life contains/results in non-trivial harm" is not the same as "life is a non-trivial imposition"?
I agree it's wrong to impose non-trivial impositions, not that it's wrong to impose things that result in non-trivial harms. Because, again, literally any imposition can result in a non-trivial harm.
Ok, so you are bringing up this one again. You are bringing up a new topic now, right? The new topic is the old one we discussed in the last thread where Benkei said that birth doesn't cause harm, so can never be relevant in discussing causing harm for future people because it's not the "direct cause" for each case of harm after the child is born? And I am going to have to rehash the same answers as I gave? Should we just say for this whole topic "Refer to old thread"?
Quoting khaled
This:
Quoting khaled
And so now you ask what "trivial" means... And then I said, it doesn't matter to the argument.. All that matters is someone subjectively thinks that they are harmed non-trivially.. Like if you gave them the surprise party, and they said "I felt non-trivially harmed" if you asked them.. then that is non-trivially harmed. You brought up the unrealistic situation that everyone's non-trivial harm is not non-trivial, oddly defining it in an objective way, which you excoriated me for attempting to do (which I still haven't given a definition of yet).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Agreed.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ok. So what matters is that they think they are non-trivially harmed. And if you knew that, that makes it wrong to impose. Agreed.
What do you do in situations where you don't know what they will think? Do we take a "best guess"? As in: "They probably won't feel non-trivially harmed, so it's ok". Note, I do still agree that if you know they will think it's a non-trivial harm that it's wrong. This is a separate question.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I literally asked you to give an objective definition that doesn't rely on reports. I am not criticizing you for attempting to do that, I am literally asking you to do it.
This is kind of my first-glance impression of what anti-natalism seems to be or at least will inevitably lead to as well. Am I incorrect, @Antinatalist? How so?
Basically if new life happens say unplanned pregnancy regardless of circumstances surrounding it "oh well, we'll let it slide", or at an extreme only if the child is born in an uneducated society where enlightenment, knowledge, and morality simply isn't available or the rare occasion when a medical abortion would be hazardous to the health of the mother, but purposefully doing so (procreating) is immoral. Something like that? What scenario would be valid or is it just as simple as the point you summarized earlier, being "creating life where harm is possible is immoral" thus not explicitly saying any of the things mentioned or alluded to but definitely implying them.
I think that may be a little harsh. It is an interesting area to explore. Any questioning of perceived 'norms' does help unearth more intriguing questions. On the surface it is certainly quite empty, but below there is merit in contemplating the ifs, buts and whys of where the thought/s came from.
I think Pink Floyd's (or rather Roger Waters) lyrics relay what I mean by 'striving' in opposition to 'happiness' and such things (that I regard as quite juvenille):
So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell?
Blue skies from pain?
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange
A walk-on part in the war
For a leading role in a cage?
I don't think we can really tell 'good' from 'bad' or even know what these concepts mean (it is impossible to explicate a 'feeling' accurately). The antinatalist is assuming they have made a solid judgement over 'heaven and hell' regarding the 'right' and 'wrong' of the sitiuation.
WIth a choice between torturing someone to death for a decade OR killing two people quickly what would we really choose. If those were the ONLY options. What is our instant reaction to such a question and in reacting to this question (by needing to associate it's meaning through a social medium of communication - lanaguage) how much of our 'choice' is dictated by the possible revalation in the public sphere EVEN IF we have no intention of revealing our choice.
I would strongly argue that ANY public declaration of your choice here has to be muddied by how this choice could or would be received. In that light honesty to ourselves, and everyone else, is practically impossible. Any attempts to wrangle around this will result in a deceit of sorts.
We have reason to help us navigate these kind of hypothetical problems and one may ask what their use is. The use is in using the hypothetical in a 'selffish' manner and keeping your 'choice' absent in order to explore what you 'feel' rather than ideas about what 'should' or shouldn't' be done. Then we can at least have a better understanding of what we would wish to do - 'selffishly,' as per aboive meaning of 'selffish' - and then have a target to extend toward.
That is how I view any 'ethical' proposition. It may very well be considered a 'non-ethic' which is fine by me :)
No, it does not justify in itself, and I´m not saying that is an argument. I have mentioned reasons for my argument before so I didn't like to rephrase myself, but let´s repeat them here:
[i]"The basic argument is as follows:we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence of another individual or – to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.
And one foundation of this argument: In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad. Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad."[/i]
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
My question was: Do you really think that absence of pleasure is as bad as that presence of pain?
The asymmetry argument is not the only one, whom you can justify antinatalism. But I think it is a really strong one. But if you are not convinced by human history, it could be that nothing can convince you.
Quoting I like sushi
They can, of course, be interpreted many ways, I'm not denying that. If you find this a problem, describe the way you use it.
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
My point of view may seem at some point even utilitarian. I am not, I am anti-utilitarian.
I find one innocent human life - her/his sovereignty for her/his life and ability to suffer and also feel pleasure - so important that nothing can balance that, to use the somewhat utilitarian concept of "balance". Auschwitz is an extreme example, but you answer this with disregard.
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
In the end, reality in its purest sense is unreachable, and it is unreachable to know what feels to be another human being or animal, I agree. But that doesn´t prevent us from making moral judgments and decisions. You yourself make them when you are saying having a child is not wrong.
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
Empathy, maybe.
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
I don´t think that even the most extreme pro-mortalist will kill another human beings. I respect human´s life and sovereignty, and I don´t have any right to terminate another person's life. YOU ARE MAKING AN INSANE LEAP, WHICH DON'T FOLLOW MY ANTINATALISTIC PHILOSOPHY.
Quoting I like sushi
If there is objective morality, I don´t think humans could reach that kind of phase. But that does not have to cause neglect for moral questions.
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
My basic premise is to question my own thinking. I have stated that asymmetry argument is not the only reason for antinatalism (look to the beginning of this post).
Quoting I like sushi
On bravery, in trivial (almost) everyday situations which many antinatalists have to face, set them out of the social community. This is a personal harm. Of course not all social communication will lead to this, but some will. I think quite similarly of bravery as you, and I have to admit that I don´t think most of those situations will cause fear. But I think some do, when you are about 1-20 -situations arguing against potentially violent people. At least for some antinatalists, I believe.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense.
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
My point is the potential child does not suffer. If it's already sentient being at the time of miscarriage it surely can suffer.
Quoting I like sushi
Benatar is not on the line. I don´t know about his reasoning.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
In your dreams, perhaps. Asymmetry argument says that absence of pain is good, absence of pleasure is neutral. It is fully compatible with the example of your previous post. The grief, sorrow and sense of missing someone are feelings of some existing creature. Not feelings of someone nonexistent.
Quoting I like sushi
You´re thinking backwards. Ethics is the concept of humans, but in the heart of ethics is not the axiom that there has to be human life, or life at all. If you mean that, when there is no life, we don´t need ethics, then you are right.
Quoting I like sushi
You reject Benatar´s argument. You take for granted that absence of pleasure is as bad - if not more bad - than presence of pain. You don´t present an argument, you just say so.
On responsibility and on cowardice. I don´t think that a human being in all of its capableness and incapableness is capable enough to take responsibility for having a child. Okay, people would say so. Most will. Talk is cheap. Look around, look at the human. Humans surely breed, but where is the responsibility?
You can talk about responsibility; it is not responsible to have a child and then try to take care of them.
It is least what parents have to do, but is simply is not enough - because of pure essence of existence.
Of course most parents will care about their children and try to nurture them the best way, but that just is not enough. Even the best parents in all their nobleness are humans, not gods - they are not gods or some other supernatural creatures who could prevent things like Auschwitz, for example, on their own.
They make a risky decision, but the risks will fall on the child.
You mentioned in some of your previous posts, that having a child is something similar to peeing etc. Okay, I agree, it is natural. Perfectly natural, atavistic urge. To do like humans have always done. Some would call this cowardice.
Quoting Antinatalist
Quoting I like sushi
It is not nonsense, when there is no consent, then the act of having a child should not be done.
Quoting I like sushi
Your point of view seems something amoral, pre-moral, something in an ancient natural state, where the creatures living there are not capable of being moral at all. Your point of view seems also the point of a benevolent human being, who thinks the suffering in all its extremeness is that´s part of the picture, an accidental side. Which doesn't really matter.
Quoting I like sushi
There is more in my argument than just the "pain". You don't have presented a single contradiction. From highly biased, natural natalistic attitude my point of view may seem one-sided.
Quoting I like sushi
Summary:
1) You don´t think that absence of pain is more important than the presence of pleasure.
2) You don´t think that impossibility to have the consent of a possibly upcoming child makes the decision of having a child wrong.
Your answer for the so called euthanasia -question is that you favor having a child more ethical than giving an euthanasia to person who asks it once.
It seems like you don´t give much of value on consent in general.
There seem underlie an non-reasoning statement value life over non-life, regardless of consent of objects of the acts (having a child over only once asked euthanasia). This attitude is natural, but its foundation seems religional. What are the empirical or rational reasons to value life over non-life?
3) I hope you are not serious, but if you are, your reaction "Kill everyone then" tells you don´t really understand what antinatalism is. It certainly is not to kill others, its voluntary refusal of having a child.
4) Your statement that I am not in a position to judge, but you are judging my point of view. Perhaps not in itself paradoxical, but when making out everything what you have said is at least a bit strange.
And if that is really bye bye, I hope you have a good life. That is not sarcasm; when you are still here, make the most of it. Thank for your time and effort. :)
Quoting tim wood
I agree with the previous sentence.
Quoting tim wood
As a matter of fact being alive can be wrong - but that is not the view I present. Some people do, and they may make suicide because of that. Reproduction is a perfectly natural human act. But what is natural or what is not, is irrelevant about its rightness or wrongness.
Quoting tim wood
Where exactly is the lie of antinatalism?
— I like sushi
Quoting Outlander
I will answer you the same way I answered to ´I like sushi´.
I don´t think that even the most extreme pro-mortalist will kill another human beings. I respect human´s life and sovereignty, and I don´t have any right to terminate another person's life. YOU ARE MAKING AN INSANE LEAP, WHICH DON'T FOLLOW MY ANTINATALISTIC PHILOSOPHY.
Quoting Outlander
I consider purposeful procreating immoral. I have mentioned my grounding and reasoning in my original text and also in my previous post to ´I like sushi´.
1) I put forward that the absence of pleasure deletes pain. They are NOT binary either or concepts. Less pleasure is bad and less pain is good (VERY generally speaking). Generally in the sense tat I've put forward before, pain can be useful and pleasure can be useless/detrimental, but in colloquial terms we can run with one being viewed as 'better' and the other as 'worse' in the immediate NOW experiencing of them.
2) I've stated that there is no one to give consent and that even an existing child in today's world is not deemed self-reflective enough for more matured humans to ask for consent about how they live their lives etc.,. Besides that, from teh get go I clearly stated that the idea of 'right' or 'wrong' was nonsensical but I just stepped past that fo the sake of the discussion (I did state this at the start of our exchange).
My answer regarding euthanasia was carefully worded and not universally applicable ethical law. You shouldn't have a hard time rereading that and retracting your thoughts about what I said. I would absolutely not just agree to anyone saying they wished to die. It would be inhuman to hand a gun to someone having a rough time so they can shoot themselves in the head if they are not in control of their our thoughts/actions due to despair (that was all I meant). From there I just extrapolated to what was most likely and concluded that most people wishing to take their lives are not exactly in a cool calm state of mind.
I don't particularly value consent in every sinngle action I may wish to take. Why should I? I believe being generally polite is enough and I certainly don't go around asking people if they are okay with me doing x or y. I'm not that insecure anymore, but I'm not exactly inconsiderate either. The most important person to ask for consent from is myself (which involves self-restraint and negotiation and sacrifice).
If you want empirical and rational reasons for valuing life over non-life go look for them. I think the question is kind of redundant myself so I don't bother too much with it anymore, but I have before. At the end of the day you just have to come to your own messy place in your head - as we all do - and focus on something you deem worthy of your time and dedication (maybe have a child?). WHat is more important after all as you stated yourself ;)
3) That was just to point out that if one wished to reduce human suffering annihilating the human race would be a sure fire way of doing so and putting an end to the 'endless cycle of pain' as those buddhist types put it. No need to get so dramatic becaus eyou think you've foudn my evil bone :D
4) I am not that keen on rephrasing either so perhaps reread:
Quoting I like sushi
I even offered up some possible evidence to back up your position. I'm not in a position to judge either - regarding any pain vs pleasure analysis - with any kind of accuracy. I am in a position to say that 'pain' and 'pleasure' are basically one and the same, so I would question the point of the question in the first place (as stated from the get go).
FINAL point before we part ways for now ...
Quoting Antinatalist
Yeah, doesn't make much sense. Yet Benatar talks like this. He says depriving someone of pain (someone who doesn't exist).
FIN :) see you around
I agree that pain can be useful and sometimes essential in life, and pleasure can be useless/detrimental. So, it is necessary to define how I use ´pain´ and ´pleasure´. Pain is something bad itself, it does not have any accidental (term from Paul Virilio) good points - or they are so minor that they don't really matter. Pleasure is something purely good, without any unwanted accidental part - or they are so minor that they don't really matter. Real life contains all aspects of pain and pleasure. Those that you mentioned and those that I mentioned.
Quoting I like sushi
Okay. I understand your point of view. I find both acts, this so called "euthanasia" and having a child immoral. I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances.
Quoting I like sushi
In my point of view, the decision to have a child is such a severe and serious issue, that the impossibility to have a consent makes the decision of having a child wrong. You think differently, and the impossibility to have the consent in this case is irrelevant for you. You think that procreation is right anyway.
Quoting I like sushi
Like I said before I will never have a child, and reasons you sure know. I try to find happiness and interesting issues from somewhere else.
Quoting I like sushi
Reducing human suffering is a great thing, but not by any means.
Quoting I like sushi
Conclusion of your last sentence, ´pain´ and ´pleasure´ are basically one and the same. I suppose, you accept the statement that life contains both (of course you said this in many posts, also), by your own definition of them (because they are the same thing).
And non-life, by definition, does not contain pain and pleasure.
So, there is the new question, or as matter in fact the original one (it is too difficult for people in my experience, it´s from the nineties):
Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)?
Quoting I like sushi
I certainly am not an expert of the English language, but ´depriving someone of pain´ could be still an understandable sentence, at least if you mean "preventing someone of pain", even when that "someone" will not yet exist - and because of that prevention that "someone" will never exist. This makes sense to me. But ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense. If you mean by "depriving" "taking away".
Quoting Antinatalist
You lack imagaination then ;) SURELY you can think of a possible (albeit highly unlikely reason for having a child?). The thrust of my point here, and often in this thread, being that extreme cases are useful to help sketch out a course of action for lesser degrees BUT they are not the sole reason for inking in a moral dictum ... things in reality are more messy/complex than we can often see.
Quoting Antinatalist
Wrong question to get a clear view imo. Yeah, I agree on the surface neither one or the other has presedence when you word it like that. Dig further and then say:
'Does something have precedence over nothing?'
This reveals the flaw. 'Nothing' is a slippery term too. Nothing does nothing and is neither important nor unimportant. Then, due to the diversity of the English language, we may equate 'nothing' with 'absence' ... this is certainly the only way we can understand it. The non-existing is not necessarily the same thing as 'absence' but we could call it 'nothing'. This is a completely different line of thought so I didn't go into it when 'ethics' was on the table.
In this instance we should really explicate what kind of 'absence'/'nothing' we're talking about. As far as I can see we're not talking about anything that make sense so I stated we cannot draw any reasonable judgement on it BUT we can most certainly pass judgement on individual cases (because we do). The universal law of 'Procreation is wrong' - in the antinalism position - makes no sense to me and many others because it rides on the back of too many assumptions that are not delved into by any great degree.
The whole psychological machinations behind the glib terms of 'pleasure' and 'pain' has been given no due consideration in the extract you presented from Benatar. If there are bits you don't agree with that he says (I'm sure there are!) then look into how these points hold up the rest of whatever his argument is. I can say from my perspective, and many others, that I didn't even need to get to the end of the first sentence to question it. I read on hoping for a revelation but nothing came. I found avoidance and real investigation.
To the obvious ... if we feel 'pleasure' we do so because we know 'pain'. If we only feel 'pleasure' do we ONLY feel pleasure REALLY? Show me a person like this please. Plus, does such 'pleasure' necessarily mean this person is ... how should I put it ... 'happily striving through life'? I don't see why this would be so. I know from personal experience that anything I deem 'worthy' has required stress and hardship, and anything that falls in my lap through happenstance is just that. In terms of actually studies done on this matter we do know that we're essentially wired to claim authorship over what we perceived as positive outcomes and deny authorship for perceived negative outcomes.
With such lived delusions and denials going on at various levels of cognition and conscious life I do not think talk of 'consent' to non-beings, OR actual beings, makes a whole lot of sense. Neither do I see a promulgation by an inept and limited being (ie. human being) holding to some universal ethic (whatever it is) makes any kind of sense. For specific INDIVIDUAL instances we can do better because we have more data to work with and can explore the possibles more readily.
Have you heard how the US Airforce tried to create a one size fits all seat for pilots? They took the average width, depth and height of pilot sizes and produce a one size fits all seat. Shock horror, it fit NO ONE. Same principle here. I cannot make sweeping statements about whether it is 'better' or 'worse' (if I followed the antinatalist pattern) to have a child because I am not privy to the live sof every human that has lived. As mentioned previously, I am fairly damn sure that most people prefer to live than to die (and that most if not all consider suicide at some point to some degree). This leaves ONLY the question of 'right' to bring life into the world ... that is just a silly idea. I could ask anyone about their right to do anything or think anything and they may also ask what right they have to ask about their right to do anything and so on ... pointless.
"Rights" are social apparatus hewn over human sociological evolution. They are tied to laws and ideas of 'universal rights' ... no sorry, not for me. Not to say I am not influenced by them I am not that naive. This brings me right back to my main point about the whole body of ethics ... it is not really a matter of what I pronounce and show in the public sphere (ie. here).
We've created ideas of justice and rights in order to live together/apart in a society. I don't think every person requires as much social interaction as others and this can cause great suffering and great pleasure. Neither is BAD or GOOD, but the fact that I exist is something I value because I cannot value not existing because I cannot take part in the act of valuing anything if I don't exist and I take great pleasure and pain in exploring the world.
I don't buy into any 'moral' gibberish about empathy toward non-existing persons or pathetic excuses for shirking responsibility. The Trolley Problem is exactly what this shows in some people. A great many will happily do nothing regardless of pain or suffering OR they just flat out refuse the hypothetical as a hypothetical and childishly avoid the personal task at hand out of ignorance/stupidity (as I used to).
WHo am I to judge you may ask? I am me ... so fucking what?
I hope you would make a choice in the Trolley problem rather than not think at all. I do have a sneaking suspicion you may refuse the problem though and instead equate it with my 'denial' of your antinatalist view of 'right to procreate' but they are not the same thing at all because one is plain English and the other is not far from saying 'Purple under the Tuesday smell of square farts' which is as a grammatical construct is fine, but in terms of meaning requires leaps in metaphor and guesswork.
We only know dark gray and light gray. Don't mistaken them for imagined black or white. We can only stumble around in the degree of shade and light and be thankful when lighter times come about.
Anyway, I'm writing for me without anyone's consent ;) I am TRULY done here but if you wish to start another thread about something un/related that has as much work put into it as your OP here then I will at least read it.
It's been useful to me. Good thread :)
Quoting I like sushi
I thought in early nineties the problem of procreation. And the basic principles, what I have presented here, were already in my thinking. I decided no to have child ever in my life, I thought it is a decision for someone´s whole life and I don´t have right to do so. I told my decision to someones, but they didn´t think that this kind of decision will last.
I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn´t. It is not about that at all. Fifteen years ago I got sterilization (so for your natalists, this creature will not throw his possibly invalid genes to next generation :))
I have friends who have kids of their own, and I´m okay with that.
Quoting I like sushi
I have thought about this issue a lot. The concept of "nothing" and the limitations of natural language. In the nineties I read a statement from some philosopher, maybe Nietzsche (maybe not; I haven´t found the statement later in his works): "You can't criticize it from the inside". And that "it" is life. But I think that statement does not stand up to closer scrutiny.
And we are making decisions all the time, which involves nothing/"nothing" or "absence of life".
Euthanasia is one example. Many people think that for some people euthanasia is the best option in some situation, and they don´t believe in afterlife. They think that this nothing/"nothing", which comes according to their point of view by way of euthanasia, is better/"better" for that person than her/his current life.
I think the question "Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)?" is valid after all.
Quoting I like sushi
I know this. I had couple of low level kickboxing matches in my youth (full contact not nowadays popular K 1, in "full contact" punches and kicks allowed only waist above and I have couple of light contact matches, where the contact is limited). I wasn´t much of a fighter, but at the end the process of going through the pain was rewarding. The amount of suffering was not so much, in general - but without it the pleasure wouldn´t been so rewarding. And I find this rewarding feeling when I´m training others sports as well nowadays. Maybe I train wrongly (some say insane), but usually the exercise itself is not fun. The suffering of sports is definitely limited, of course there are some other much bigger obstacles - to which I personally may don´t have much of a relation - which will give you greater reward. But some pain is no way developing and have any positive outcomes. And I´m not talking about war zones or any situations like that.
Quoting I like sushi
I think we think same way at many topics. However, we evaluate quite differently the rights and the totality of life, the question of starting the new life of someone else .
Quoting I like sushi
Rights, as you describe them, are social structures. And some theorists derive them from some concept of universal rights, etc. I think you may value not existing in some situation, where the burden of life is too much.
Quoting I like sushi
The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English.
Do you mean by "Trolley problem" this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
If so, I thought this in 2011. My intuitive answer was then:
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian.
But counter argue my point of view, go ahead.
But now I HAVE TO GO UNDER THE BAR, GO TO SQUATTING, to the gym.
I should have gone already yesterday, but this site took all my time.
Adoption is a possibility and not against your beliefs. I'm sure you could lessen the 'pain' of life for someone well enough that way without the "responsibility/burden" (whatever it is to you) of having brought them into the world.
Quoting Antinatalist
It is. But it doesn't mean anything anymore than the 'right to eat' (ie. sustain yourself off of other living organisms). Such ideas of 'rights' are embedded in judeochristian heritage. The moral codes we've adopted have been for reasons that are not always valid, but if doing X and Y in one society and A and B in another, given our very silly brains, we assume the outcome in each society is dictated by A and B & X and Y even though they are singular factors that may have VERY little influence on what makes a 'better' society.
Quoting Antinatalist
Telling me what you'd do is mostly a waste of time. By doing so you fall into the trap of what society deems as 'right' and what 'right' means. That is a point that most miss with the Trolley Problem. You don't need a 'reason' ... in fact you've porbably seen many people in your life come up with reasons for their actions that are completely fabricated (and they BELIEVE them too!).
I don't think we can escape some idea of 'what is expected of us' as humans, but I sure as hell know we can investigate further and pull back the curtain enough to guard against possible misfortunes due to blinkered views of the world we're about.
Quoting Antinatalist
Most people do. Few, if any, truly speak the same 'language' though so we're necessarily at odds with each other to some degree. I find such conflict to be a primary reason for living.
Most so called 'negative' aspects of life are shunned when they should be embraced, and vice versa. A lot of what people wish for is actually nothing more than self-torture (ie. Freedom viewed as a happy bouncy castle of fluffy bunnies and joy ... NO NO NO! Not even slighty would pure freedom look liek that because Freedom comes with the heavy burden of responsibilty. Th more freedom you have the more responsible you are ... sounds good at first but after you really think about it do doubt you'll make do with taking on 'just as much freedom as I can handle and still live comfortably with'.
There is political storm now as always. Today though technologies have made us view this weather differently. It is becoming harder and harder for me to comprehend what I would've missed if I'd be born 20-30 years ago ... I basically left college around the time the internet was really becoming a social force (facebook was just flourishing). It is hard to notice what drips by with time, but the changes have been really phenomenal and I'm excited to see what happens next. I think the old poltical cycles are going to shift because the whole cognitive landscape of human interaction has startewd to shift a lot AND there is an even bigger thing on the way with CRISPR that will make the invention of the computer look like a mere blip in human history.
Anyway, I'll start a thread up or you can about something else and see if we have anything worth disagreeing about ;)
Done here TRULY :D
Quoting I like sushi
I highly respect people who adopt children. But I don´t have that kind of relationship, that adoption will be realistic. And my economic situation is not as good as it needs to be if I have an adopted child. And most of all, I don´t think I will be a good father (although I said in a previous post maybe I would, maybe I wouldn´t). I think I have some good values, and I am not a violent person or anything like that, but I don´t think I with my personality I would be father good enough. But like I said, I highly respect people who have adopted children.
Quoting I like sushi
But don´t you also think that this heritage also gives very limited kinds of structures for us to think about society and life in general? The idea of questioning the evolutionary/cultural code of having children seems very strange or odd for most people. Because of culture and evolution. I think that questioning is really a good example of out of the box -thinking.
Quoting I like sushi
I agree with the last sentence. But I think, from personal experience I know something about what society deems ´right´ and ´wrong´. I learned that at the latest in the nineties with my own antinatalistic views, when I presented them (okay, I didn´t know term "antinatalism", and I read about David Beanatar not until 2015), if not already in elementary school. But of course the values of society affect the individual, also they affect me, I am not denying that. And I also think, that example, the "Trolley Problem" is a good one. It may teach something about reasoning and like you pointed out, about society and its effect.
Quoting I like sushi
I agree with this.
Quoting I like sushi
I am happy that I´m not young anymore. Although, the life I lived then was quite good, I mean post twenties.
Quoting I like sushi
Okay. :)
That's fine, but the philosophical part of it isn't the choice to have a child or not personally, but whether it is a moral question to bring someone into the world considering things like suffering and harm is entailed in existing, no consent can ever be had, and things of this nature. Do you have anything to say on that?
Not sure what this means, but there need be no society nor would the antinatalist claim care about abstract things like "society" (at least deontological ones). Unlike a "right to eat" let's say, one is decisions made on one's own behalf and the other is made on behalf of others, and that makes the difference here. Procreation very much becomes a political decision and agenda to enact. We think about technology, economics, finance, the climate in all sort of analytical ways, but procreation for people is "automatically" off the table, when it is the root of all other conflicts.
I have to agree. Procreation is something people normally can not (or maybe they could, but they would not) consider rationally. It is something given, unquestionable. And like you said, it is the root of all other conflicts.
Yes. The agenda is already baked in at this point. It's all politics once you are enacting something for someone else. Your decision (to what though?).. Perpetuate (what though?) because you want (what though?), etc.
I don't see anything wrong with speculating about child birth. If you believe that having children is risky because your child might suffer, it is good judgement to decide not to have children. I believe it is a risk assessment decision rather than it being about morality.
Choosing not to have children is a personal risk assessment decision, it has nothing to do with wrong-or-right morality. Just my two cents...
I think you are at the essence, in the pure core, of what are persons obligations, rights - and what are not.
As to whether it is moral or immoral to bring a child into this world right now, I would say that it is moral. Human life is beautiful and valuable in all its forms. Even if the world is burning.
Maybe one of the children born today will invent the solutions of tomorrow?
My point is that because having a child is a decision of someone else´s life, and those risks will fall to the child, who can not be a part of the decision process, this decision certainly has everything to do with wrong or right -morality. It is very different to bet your money in a casino or drink a liter of vodka a day, those are risky decisions that you make with your own life. Having a child is completely different decision in its pure nature.
I can just as well say that adults are responsible for children.
Of course they are! But they are not the ones who could prevent the realization of risks (no one can); and those - at least some - fall for the child. Parents can do their best, but there are no guarantees that those acts will prevent children from suffering.
Even if it's morally wrong, people are still going to have children anyways. Antinatalism is useless. You'd have to pass a law!
That does not make antinatalism useless. People are going to have children, going to drive drunk, going to kill people and so on. I know.
But are they morally equivalent? Having children is not illegal, neither is getting drunk.
In most countries, I think, drunk driving is illegal. Law and moral are two different things.
On my personal moral I consider all those three things wrong, in general - there are some exceptions.
Are they morally equivalent?
Personally, I would not have a child if I even somehow could, for ethical reasons.
If I have to kill a person in some "life or death" -situation, I don´t consider that wrong - at least in some circumstances.
And if I compare the ´act of having a child´ to the ´act of killing some child murderer, child rapist´ who is not gonna stop his/her behaviour, my answer is very clear. I think killing that kind of bastard is clearly morally better than having a child.
That's fine, but are you going to tell me not have children?
If you tell me it's unethical to have children, I don't care. :kiss:
If you have read my original text, you already know that I don´t want you - or anybody - to have children.
You don´t care. Most people don´t. It seems very clear to me that it's quite easier to think with your balls or by the ovaries.
I'm lazy.
I briefly checked how many threads you have started in this forum, seems not so lazy. Of course "laziness" on philosophy forum, on work, hobbies is a different kind of thing than laziness to resist the ancient will to spread one's own genes into this world.
That's a good point.
That is possible, even highly possible, perhaps.