Procreation is using people via experimentation
Let me first say, I think putting ANYONE in conditions of harm is bad. There is no gradation. HOWEVER, even if we WERE to look at it in this (already-poor) ethical view that SOME people will have good lives, it is also clearly wrong to procreate using these brute utilitarian/consequentialist methods. The reason is, that it is experimenting with people's lived experience outcomes. You can never know really how someone will fit in that scheme. In a way, you are experimenting with people's lives.. "Oh shit, this person really isn't enjoying much, but look that one is!". This is abominable to me to think that because SOME (even a "majority" of) people "live out" or "have a better orientation towards" a good life, that this justifies experimenting and providing the collateral damage of those who are not living out or are already well-attenuated for a good life. Thus, just as the principle of non-aggression says no forcing others, a sub-category in this realm is no experimenting on others via trial-and-error to find a humans that ARE well-adjusted or live out a good life.
An argument against this would be that people can change, but then, you must consider that now you put someone in a bad situation that they have to get out of, and thus harming them in an effort of hoping (like a gambler) for someone who lives out a good life. In other words, there's no way around this gambling or experimentation aspect of having people with varying experiences.
Not only this, even if we acknowledge the "dynamics" of the ups, downs, neutrals, unqualifiable aspects of life, these too would simply be a part of the collateral damage of experimenting with having people. Recognizing the dynamism of the "average" experience in other words, does not provide any points in the "it's good to procreate" corner.
An argument against this would be that people can change, but then, you must consider that now you put someone in a bad situation that they have to get out of, and thus harming them in an effort of hoping (like a gambler) for someone who lives out a good life. In other words, there's no way around this gambling or experimentation aspect of having people with varying experiences.
Not only this, even if we acknowledge the "dynamics" of the ups, downs, neutrals, unqualifiable aspects of life, these too would simply be a part of the collateral damage of experimenting with having people. Recognizing the dynamism of the "average" experience in other words, does not provide any points in the "it's good to procreate" corner.
Comments (72)
Putting money where one's mouth is - if you'd like to be taken seriously - entails passionate political action. Is your anti-natalism a fair-weather posturing directed exclusively toward feckless internet chatter? Or have you thrown your hat in with the movement?
Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
Note your forbears and compeers.
So this is a lot of ad hominem, not engaging the argument itself.
And of course, I am for the non-aggression principle, which means not forcing your views on others (one of the main reasons not to procreate actually). Thus, I would not force people through political action be antinatalist. Rather, I would argue my point and hope to convince. Why wouldn't a philosophy forum be a good place to argue ethical views?
So at the end of the day, you decide to attack me, mischaracterize my argument, and then try lump me in the mischaracterzed view.
Stop feeding him for christs sake.
Hehe you're right.
Lol, I know. How this doesnt count as preaching and against forum regs is beyond me.
How is what you're doing not trolling? But here I am feeding you, so that's on me for answering. However, it shows i dont just create a post and leave, I try to defend arguments. In other words I am arguing in good faith and respectfully. Also it may be same topic but from different perspectives. It is also in the realm of philosophy, mainly applied ethics, and there has been philosophical literature on it. At the end of the day I dont have to justify my posts to the likes of you and thus be warned, any trolling response, I will simply not answer ending this rabbit hole you seem to want to create which is to throw ad homs and not discuss substance. Say it to me in PM if you really want but doing it here is simply trolling. So now that I fed you, please go away.
It's an argument. It's quite a strong argument against any form of utilitarianism. "Your joy cannot justify my suffering." Schop is extending the complaint of the monster against Frankenstein to that of every unhappy person against their parents. Repetitive is a fair complaint, but not preaching.
That's actually a really good summary.
I disagree, I think that what he is interested in is preaching, not discussing. Ive watched him interact with others, and he doesnt listen or engage, he repeats the exact same talking points over and over and changes the angle of approach just enough so he can throw up a facile claim that he’s actually doing philosophy. Its obvious to me what he is doing.
Here is a test for you to try: do not engage him in any anti natalist posts or threads. Take note of any threads/posts he tries to subvert into an antinatalist thread and do not engage those either. Then, observe how the threads/posts left over for engagement equal 0. Thats how you can tell when its preaching, and this is.
Opinion without argument.
Quoting DingoJones
I have interacted with him before, several times, and sometimes managed to have an interesting discussion, and sometimes I get bored. But there are many posters I engage for a bit and then get bored with. Actually, I find you preachy and boring more so because you preach a thoughtless conventional scientistic wisdom that is immune from any self criticism. Schop and I are about as opposed as we could be on this and many other topics, but that is valuable in a discussion to anyone who is interested in philosophy rather than following convention.
In common with all your other antinatalist threads (and I'm slightly inclined to agree with @DingoJones about the proselytising) you're simply assuming an individualist assessment of both utility and ethics. People do not consider only the ethical implication of their actions on one person, but on the community as a whole. This is why people consider bad faith to be negative even when the person directly affected didn't notice. It's bad for the community as a whole.
So it is with this latest incarnation of how evil it is to have kids. We're taking a gamble on the relative consequences for the whole community (or at least, I think we should be - I'm not about to argue that most people make moral choices about having children, I'm pretty sure they don't).
We can't presume, in this decision, that the rest of our community will not have children, that seems unlikely. So there will be a next generation. The choice then is - is it better for that community that I have and raise children, or that I don't.
It seems to follow from this that if one considers oneself more likely to raise children more beneficial than average one is obliged to do so. If one is of the opposite opinion, one is obliged to not.
Given the above, the only remaining issue would be if your, as yet, unborn child also carries that duty. If not, then you'd be imposing on their autonomy. But if such a duty of care were not considered categorical, then we need have no care for the future children in any case, so we must presume it is categorical. Given that, we can be certain that our, as yet unborn, children will inherit that duty. It is therefore no additional imposition on them.
So the 'experimenting' issue doesn't arise at an individual level. There may be some merit in it at a community level (we're gambling that continuing the human race is overall a good idea), but such decisions (as far as individuals are concerned) have already been made.
There seems to me to be two main justifications for having children. Either - "I think they'll like this", or "I think they ought to help with this", or I suppose a bit of both. Both are estimates where there's no loss to the individual for not even taking the bet (the antinatalist argument in a nutshell), but both estimates run a risk to the community from not even taking the bet.
I disagree that ethics is at a social level. The ACTUAL entity affected by any decision isn't a social entity, but the individual within that society. So any decision "socially" made is affecting the individual. If you want to talk about politics or social policy that is one thing, but in terms of ethics, anything that overlooks the individual for an amorphous collective would be missing the target. Thus utilitarian arguments for the "greatest good" would be off the table in the realm of pure ethics.
Quoting Isaac
Nope, we have now jumped out of the realm of the locus of ethics, which is the individual, for some third-party considerations. This is actually immoral as it is trying to consider how an individual will be used by society. It is using of people for the greater good.
Quoting Isaac
Same critique as above applies here.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not sure what this is getting at, you might have to explain. However, based on what I see here, it is an inbuilt pyramid scheme. There is this duty to society to have children if one would think society would benefit from it, thus always insuring that some new beings must procreate on behest of society. Again, same critique of overlooking individual for some third-party, non-individualistic consideration. The locus of ethics lies at the individual. There is no agenda anyone has to live out.
Quoting Isaac
But it is at an individual level. Some people might live out or be well-attenuated for a "good life" but others will not. The experiment is happening to individuals.
Quoting Isaac
What risk to the community? Is it even appropriate to talk about "community" in ethics as opposed to the individual?
This attempt to turn "some procreation is bad" into "all procreation is bad" just falls flat in every regard.
So you have duties to another single individual, but not duties to a number of individuals collectively. That seems like rather an odd ethical position. Which individual should we pick when more than one is going to be effected by our actions?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I can't make any sense of this. Either we all simply do as we please (complete respect for autonomy) or we accept duties which constrain our behaviour with respect to the welfare of others. Given the former, there's nothing stopping us having children, given the latter (presuming they are an inherent part of being human) then any children, real or potential, are going to have those duties too. You seem to want to constrain the current generation with ethical considerations, but absolve the next generation of all responsibilities.
Good point - 'experimentation' suggests raising happy (as opposed to distressed) children is an unknown quantity. We know plenty about how to raise happy children, we know plenty about how to make happy adults. The fact that we're not doing either is social and political, nothing to do with procreation.
I am not saying that ethics does not apply to many individuals at once. Rather, what I am saying is ethics does not apply to some third-party entity or concept (e.g. humanity, the species, society, the greater good principle, life for life's sake, the pursuit of happiness, etc.).
Quoting Isaac
I don't know where you get that last part about generations. All generations would be constrained by the negative ethical principles of non-aggression and non-harm. Thus, if it is ethically good to not procreate.. if someone did procreate breaking that ethical good, then the next generation is bound by that rule too. What I was saying earlier is that, procreating to "benefit society" would be using individuals for a third-party entity (society) or a third-party principle (the greater good principle), both of which are not at the level of the locus of ethics (which is the at the level of the individual or individuals). One of my points in the other thread is we cannot violate negative ethics for some positive ethics.
This I believe to be just a wrong assessment of the information. There is no one-to-one ratio of good intentioned, good child-rearing parents always producing the best outcomes. Humans just don't work in such an if/then fashion. Even if this were the case, there is always collateral damage of those who don't fit this model. You simply cannot get around the collateral damage problem.
Quoting Tzeentch
You have not proven that, and certainly not by posting those few sentences.
Again, it is hubris to think we know with certainty such outcomes based on X, Y, Z factors of the parents and environment. We simply don't. Even if there is a tendency, and even if we can define and agree upon what "positive outcomes" are, there will certainly be those who don't fit the mold. Thus, there will always be collateral damage. Also, being that I oppose brute utilitarian anyways, I would like to point out that the epistemology is very tricky here. Living in the moment might be neutral or bad, but reporting "good" to someone who asks you to sum up your life for a study or for the camera, or for a reporter is different. Looking at someone's statistics on a one page report of someone's socioeconomic status, also doesn't reveal as much as you might expect about someone's internal states. However, that is a rabbit hole that I don't want to go down at this moment though tangential. That could be its own thread.
Another poor outcome of utilitarian ethics is that, you can argue that as generations go forward, we can learn more what works to minimize the collateral damage. Well, that would be the definition of using people as an experiment then.
What is 'society' other than 'many individuals'?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm pointing out that this new tack of 'experimentation' does not add anything new to your previous approaches. If one agrees with your ethical foundation, then it leads to the position you hold. If one has different ethical foundations, they lead to different positions. Your argument that we should not 'experiment' on future generations does not hold if we hold to certain duties (which would then apply also to future generations). If, rather, we only hold to a radical non-aggression principle, your argument stands, but if we hold to such a position, your other arguments stand too, this latest adds nothing.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why is it hubristic for me to state that we know how to make people happy, but not equally hubristic for you to say you know there will always be those who don't fit. How do you access knowledge of the human condition which is hidden from me?
Okay, I will amend this to make it align with what I am intending. If you are breaking negative ethics (non-aggression/non-harm) in order to fulfill some positive ethics (I think this is better for you, this is better for society), then something has been violated. Thus, forcing someone to live because people MUST pursue happiness... Forcing someone to be born because society MUST benefit from children of certain parents (which is just odd to me anyways in your argument), would be wrong.
Quoting Isaac
It adds only in the fact that people often think about things in the brute utilitarian sense, and this is trying to show that this would be a wrong approach. It is a popular one too so I think it should be addressed. .
People will tend to say "most people..." or "well, at least some people...".
Quoting Isaac
None of it is hidden. That would be a straw man as I didn't state that or intend it. If you put your two thoughts together, what I am saying, though there might be what some would say are "happy people", there will always be people that don't fit that. That is not hidden, it is right there. So I'm not saying anything we can both see. However, the hubris is to think that X, Y, Z factors of parents and environment will always lead to good outcomes. Further, any tweaking or trying to reduce the collateral damage with each generation is the definition of experimenting with people.
Exactly. So this adds nothing to the very simple proposition that "if you believe all of my ethical positions you will also believe my conclusions as to what range of actions they lead to". This has already been established, and repeating it is not yielding anything new.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why say "society must benefit"? If society is going to continue to exist (which all the evidence seems to indicate it will) then its not a matter of any ideological positive commitment at all, any more than if a refugee came to your house you would be obliged to feed them. You didn't cause the problem, but you're obliged to make it better.
There will be another generation, that generation will have problems to solve. Those are not ideological commitments, they're just inductive beliefs. I have two choices - have children and raise them to help solve those problems, or not have children and leave those problems to someone else to deal with. I can't see any sound ethical position which supports the latter. It sounds like nothing but selfishness.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm asking how you know this.
Well, there doesn't have to be, unless you believe that parents of happy children are somehow also responsible for unhappy children.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I suppose this ties in with that last line: I don't see how successful parents can somehow be blamed for the failure of unsuccessful parents, which is what I believe you are implying.
Why should people be used like this? What you are saying is that we must be pressured to violate negative ethics in order fix some X situation. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, as per my previous conversation, new people born to X, Y, Z factors does not guarantee positive outcomes or only positive outcomes. Collateral damage is still in play.
Quoting Isaac
Because there ARE people that do not fit the mold. People are not cookie-cutters.
In a way they are, but only because the parents procreated the children. You cannot force someone into a game, and then say "Well it's YOUR fault for not liking it".
Quoting Tzeentch
Not quite. I am implying that "successful" parents don't always create successful children. People are not cookie-cutters. There are no guaranteed outcomes for what people are like or what they do, or what will befall them, or what conditions they might face, or how their day-to-day life turns out, or how they view life.
I meant it differently. How can parents of happy children be held responsible for another couple's unhappy children? The way you phrase your previous argument you make it sound like parenting is a combined effort by all parents everywhere. I disagree with this. I think it is an individual effort and it should be judged on an individual basis.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And you believe this is what makes procreation immoral, no matter how good the "odds"?
I'm not sure where you got that because I agree with you.
Quoting Tzeentch
Nope, this is very much just a sliver of the argument. That is why I started a separate thread, because this is the popular one "the odds are good so it's good"! This is what I consider brute utilitarianism. It does not get around the collateral damage objection.
So what amount of uncertainty is acceptable? Or is uncertainty always unacceptable?
Well, if you look at the OP you can probably guess my answer, but the answer is no amount if it means that collateral damage will ensue and that by the attempt at getting closer to 100% certainty we are harming people, and essentially experimenting in the hopes of getting closer and closer. However, this shouldn't be surprising as my answer being I laid it all out in the OP itself and have been commenting on all sorts of various rebuttals throughout this thread. I'm wondering if you didn't read it or missing that.
If no amount of uncertainty is acceptable, what does this mean for human interaction in general?
It seems to me man can never be absolutely certain of anything. Wouldn't that make all human interaction immoral, in your view?
I believe to have a quality relationship with anyone, some individuals will have to find practical ways to make that relationship last as long as possible and at the very least each party ends the relationship on positive terms. I don't believe our sexual relationships carry on after we die. I believe most homeless people suffer from depression due to the dangerous nature of sexual relationships. I believe many homeless people could find peace by making some sort of peace with their former lovers. Unfortunately homeless people are very often the types to take relationships very seriously which is largely what drives them to for lack of a better phrase "an extreme lifestyle".
So, if we are uncertain about birth, and thus, can prevent any uncertainty, that can easily be remedied- refrain from procreation. Once born, we are bound to violate ethics for each other. That is admitted. But since antinatalism is dealing with the easy route- no actual violation, I see no problem with it. Rather, once born, we make the "devil's bargain" of violating this and that ethics.
Interesting idea. This is more geared towards psychology or sociology, but interesting. I'd have to ask for any proof that homeless people are "often the types to take relationships very seriously" as this seems like armchair evidence of such. But perhaps you can elaborate.
Quoting unenlightened
:clap:
I was homeless for a time. Of course homeless people are the types to take relationships seriously. Or what would be a better way to put it is trust is very important because trust has ramifications for safety.
I spent time surfing sofas of friends but I've had to sleep in a total strangers house a number of times and identifying who to trust is extremely important. All your relationships are important because at times your life depends on them. Especially in the winter! When in doubt though; trust a tent and trust that nature is a fickle parent.
Fortunately the easiest surveys to carry out are homeless surveys. My solitary evidence and relatively short length of time as part of this demographic isn't enough so I suggest you make a large box of sandwiches, fill a few flasks with some cheap Mocha and spend some time surveying your local homeless or make your way to a hostel/shelter/long term b&b/motel.
Ask them how important relationships are, do they value their chosen family and what is the first thing they would do if they had a clean slate with everyone?
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
With what objective and controlled by who?
If it is an experiment who gave permission for individuals to be used in that experiment?
Controlled by matter, with death as the objective. The atoms gave permission when they conspired to create the sex drive.
I’m not sure that I can accept that there is an experiment going on, I’m unsure about this. But if there is no experiment then I would be questioning schopenhauer’s concern, but I find myself leaning his way. On the basis that I regard the universe as chaos then I would think of our lives as the result of chance, random connections. As a result our actions produce children. I don’t really know the core reason for having children, I have no proof of anything. I do know we can chose not to have them, and i do know that as a result of having them individuals are born into a world, in a condition, that no one would chose. I think schopenauer1 does makes a legitimate ethical point. It’s difficult to get your head around it, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.
It seems rather absurd to me. The idea that no amount of negativity can ever be justified is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think it accounts for the fact that a lot of people are happy to be alive.
The idea that on an individual level the raising of a child can be likened to rolling a dice I find equally questionable and it smells of opportunistic use of chance and statistics. Chance really is nothing more than a tool to explain things which are difficult to predict. When you liken everything that involves chance to an experiment, the term "experiment" loses its meaning.
Exactly. As stands now (and always did stand) as a complete summary of your posts
Quoting Isaac
Your argument here is only valid if you agree that your particular non-aggression ethic is a reasonable constraint on behaviour but the need to act to avoid significant harm is not a reasonable constraint on behaviour. I don't share that belief.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I didn't ask you how you know there are such people. I asked you how you know there 'always will be' such people, which is the claim required in order to support your position.
There have been times that couples preferred a male child and viewed a female child as a burden. There are cultures that still feel that way, and there are men in all all cultures who prefer to have a boy over a girl for reasons that are purely egotistic. There have been states where female children were killed or allowed to die. Some children, boys, are expected to carry on what the father had started: a business, a farm, or just ideas about living: honour, masculinity, patriarchy, etc.
It’s difficult to be really conscious in our own society, whatever it might be, about where this begins to creep into decisions about having children and raising them, and what purpose they serve, where it might be happening unrecognised because it’s so subtle.
So it’s difficult to determine whether there is an experiment going on or not, and if not an experiment than at least it’s determining the outcome of a child’s experience in life because of decisions made by others who do not have the child’s interests at heart.
A state that does not value females and chooses males over females is making a conscious decision on the structure of that society. They’re shaping society according to a set of ideas they hold, and more than likely serve their own interests.
Is all this an experiment? I’m not sure, but it is a situation where the actions have been, are being, justified on the grounds that society could not grow and thrive without it. That does seem to have some sort of totalitarian framework about it.
If we reach the point where we can chose to give birth to males or females, through abortion or genetic manipulation, what then is that?
If one procreates, one is responsible for one's children. Now we could complicate this with responsibilities to society and society's responsibilities to children and parents, but it seems uncontroversial that nevertheless one is responsible for one's children's welfare.
My daughter is on the other side of the world, and that responsibility is pretty marginal now. Still, if she were taken ill and needed to be flown home, we'd sell the family jewels, and kill the fatted calf.
So what would be my position if my daughter were so miserable as to wish she had never been born? what would be my responsibility if she were a tedious repetitive proselytising anti-natalist? Should I be proud or ashamed?
Quoting unenlightened
Responsibility and proud or ashamed, they’re not really the same are they? Feeling responsible for them doesn’t include pride or shame, does it? I don’t think I would feel pride or shame, but concern.
But only if she was miserable.
Edit: but to be fair, if she wished she had not been born then she could hardly be happy. Is this not similar to my post about the parents of a child in hospital with an untreatable or barely treatable illness?
its an armchair observation. Sex and the heart are in fact closely linked. Drugs and the heart are closely linked.
Haha, you giveth and taketh away.. I would say love them nonetheless and realize that they have a viewpoint on existential conditions of life itself, which is much more than most people who don't reflect on any of it. That is something to be proud of. Some people just blindly follow religion, some people just go through the motions and don't think about it, some people just get manipulated by social cues, some people bother not to think outside the box at all or about anything bigger than the next pleasurable thing. Some people have no philosophical inclination whatsoever. Realize it would probably have nothing to do with how you "raised" them, you probably raised them just fine or the best way you thought how. Nothing to be ashamed of there. You also shouldn't feel bad too. You did what you thought was right at the time. But, I am curious what would a good answer be for you? Should the child feel shame? Is disrespect the only attitude that one can take from the child's/monster's complaint? It might not be anything personal at all to that particular parent, but rather the conditions of life itself. In fact, one of the latest events I saw was an Indian man in his 20s sued his parents for having him (for some small amount of money or something). It was of course thrown out of court. The parents and that man get along just fine and kind of kid with each other, kind of wink/wink.. yeah you shouldn't have been born, but we get along great kind of thing. So I don't think being an antinatalist is mutually exclusive with poor relations with children, that is if the child would even be vocal about it to the parents. See article here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287
The anti-natal theme in Christianity is quite strong, in the monastic tradition, the celibacy of priests, the Shakers, Cathars, and the general notion of the fallen state of man and the vale of tears. And it ends in apocalyptic fantasies of rapture, second coming and so on.
My question isn't really about relationships, but about the morality. The Shakers were anti-natalist and their way of life did not survive. So there is a pragmatic moral principle that anti-natalists should have children to spread the word. Rather like the Bodhisattva reincarnating after enlightenment...
It would be my position not to use people in present generations (cause conditions of harm for them) for future generations to be better off.
So no one has any duty to alleviate suffering?
I see what you're saying, but you will know my answer. It wouldn't be right to use current generations in a "greatest good" principle, to benefit future generations.
I would formulate it a bit different- duty to not cause harm when possible. If I forced you into a game whereby you would be harmed, because I thought it would be better for future generations, that is problematic. The locus of ethics should be the individual, not a utility calculation.
I just asked if you felt an individual has a duty to alleviate suffering. I'm aware that you also think individuals should not force others to do stuff without their prior consent. I already stated my strong disagreement with the universal application of that. I'm wondering specifically if you have any other ethics or if this radical non-aggression principle is your only aim.
You phrase it with such hostility though, so it already puts me on a defensive footing. Non-harm and non-aggression (when possible when dealing with autonomous beings) can be the basis for many actions (that may be construed as ethical). So there are really two principles at play there. Do we have a positive "duty" to alleviate suffering? Sure. I would say that it is a very good principle to follow and should be but not at the behest of violating negative ethics.. alleviating suffering by causing this new suffering sort of thing. Or in the case of experimentation.. not experimenting with some people to see if we can get a better outcome with other people.
So I'm just wondering what the point would be. Why not cause suffering?
The point of not causing suffering?
Yes. Why avoid causing suffering?
That's a particular kind of consequentialism. It's not an argument against consequentialism. In fact his arguments, like most consequentialist arguments, starts with deontological axioms - here, something like one shall not cause others suffering without their consent - and then uses this axiom and looks at consequences. Which is what pretty much any consequentialist does: Even the cliche greatest good for the greatest number will posit an axiom of what is good, then build from it.
Here he is arguing that we cannot offset unconsented to suffering with pleasure. Which some consequentialist positions do do, but one need not.
For good or for ill.
I'm getting that. What seems odd about his approach, which is what I'm trying to draw out, is that he wants to question the ethical axioms of others, in terms of more simple foundations, but then present his own axiom as a fait accompli.
My feeling with all these antinatalist arguments is that they're putting the cart before the horse. They name some ethical principle which (unless you're religious) can only have been derived from some aspect of human nature. Then they use this one ethic to suggest we should ignore a whole series of other aspects of human nature (the desire to procreate, a feeling of belonging, a sense of community etc).
I just want to know - why pick that one.
Quoting Isaac
I've always said that it basically goes down to first principles. If agreed upon, then it is about whether they are applied consistently.
If you want me to defend the first principles themselves, I can give several reasons. The first principles to do no harm and to not force others would be respecting the individual as an autonomous being that might have choices (like not wanting to be forced or harmed). This is also not using the individual for another thing (perhaps a preference you would prefer from that individual). Thus the highest respect for the individual would in negative ethics. Since it is individuals where ethics is ultimately realized, this again would be a respect for the individual. It is based on individualistic notions of ethics- that it is actual individuals that must be considered. Procreation sets the conditions for harm to an individual, it also forces their hand. The decision to not procreate prevents both of these.
Which would just be another first principle, of course.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Is this just another first principle, or are you claiming this to be objectively the case?
I still don't understand where you're going with this. If all you have are some unsupported first principles which (on the face of it) are quite odd, and so unlikely to be shared, then what purpose could possibly be served by stating them?
You can't realistically hope to convince others to hold them too - after all, you can forward no rational argument for having them in the first place. You can't expect anyone to be drawn by the consequences - the extinction of the human race. So what is it that compels you to keep writing this stuff?
I always claimed that this starts with agreeing with the first principles. That is all philosophy can do... "If you believe X, Y, Z, it should entail 1, 2, 3".. If you don't believe that the only ways are by picking out elements that you disagree with and seeing what it is that you would disagree about that and then seeing if at the end you really disagree with it, or you disagree with some of its consequences. If you do disagree with it, then it can be shown that what you disagree with has implications that you may also not like and maybe reconsider the original. However, at the end of the day, the first principles are where it ends. I do not think there is a perfect Categorical anything Kantian style that may be in some undisturbed land of pure rationality that I can get you to. This goes for any ethical debates... you weigh the merits and see any drawbacks and see if those drawbacks can withstand defense.
And the really ironic thing is people advocating for the end of animal life,since all animals can suffer, is concerned about the consent of currently non-existent beings. Its actually a kind of selfish attitude. To make sure I cause no suffering I will try to make it so that no conscious life ever exists again. But more than that the radical outcome is not one that is being consented to either by these non-existent beings.
And then, yes, there can be no evidence that this Value X is the most important, or even more extreme, outweighs any other value.
Yes, and I think that's what's being missed here. @schopenhauer1 is arguing entirely on the basis that some interlocutor might dislike the consequences of their position (namely perceived inconsistency - not that I'm convinced there really is any), yet when people (quite rightly) baulk at the consequence of the extinction of all humanity, we're told we must just put up with that feeling.
If the point of arguing here is...
Quoting schopenhauer1
... then any foundational belief which ends with "... and so we ought to wipe out the human race" is as good a candidate as any I can think of for revision.
What possible purpose could there be to wanting to avoid suffering, but not minding if all creatures capable of suffering cease to exist? I mean, I known filling in tax returns is a bit of chore, but the extinction of the human race is a bit of an overreaction, no?
It is a very anti-life non-theist but religious position, I think founded on a hatred of life and an anger at the universe. Sans God, it is hard to blame any agent, so it becomes parents. But I think there is a category error in here. People consent to life by living. We are not just the little lawyers in the mind with the words. We are the bodies that struggle to live, and struggle to live from conception. Consent is inherent in the striving to live and thrive. There is no fetus that has not consented to life. It doesn't make sense. It's like saying a squirrel hasn't consented to life. If you could manage to make the squirrel understand the issue, he'd still rush off to find food or mate. Life is that which wants life. Yes, some people reach a point where they no longer want to live and that which creates that we should struggle against, be it mental illness, cruelty, abuse, oppression and so on.
But part of the sickness of the Abrahamic religions was this pressure to be perfect. That's right. In life our choices may lead to unpleasance. We are not perfect. And the anti-natalists are not perfect either. And if they happen to be wrong, their project is horrific.
But since they are 100% sure they are not, they can happily have as a goal the elimination of all future life.
Nicely put.
The result may be the end of the human race. However, it is not the goal, but the consequence of not putting more people into harm.
Why hand out a death sentence to an innocent child when they haven't done anything wrong?
That would depend on what you are doing it for.Quoting Andrew4HandelThat makes every act, including your posting, futile and superfluous.