schopenhauer1

@"darthbarracuda" This would not work if you are not a utilitarian. Using people's suffering (by knowingly creating a life that could be bad) for this...

Sure! So, I actually think this kind of argument has the broadest basis and appeal in terms of arguments for antinatalism. I'll make a distinction bet...

Hey RAW, I'm a long-standing philosophical pessimist and antinatalist myself, so you might find some of the more recent threads interesting to peruse ...

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 object...

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.

I thought we agreed that as long is all that was needed was subjective, non-trivial harm.

Are we agreed? I am not interested in arguing with someone who simply wants to argue in bad faith and non-productive ways. I am making sure of this fr...

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 wil...

@"Antinatalist" and @"I like sushi", just wanted to mention that it looks like you may be going down the same road I had previously in this thread and...

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 moralit...

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 b...

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 ...

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 pre...

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 d...

This means nothing at face value. "Not the one.." implies you are castigating me for a position we are debating. Odd. You are not addressing the my po...

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 wa...

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 o...

Sure, this works. Ah wait, so this negates your claim here, which mentioned nothing of suffering: And thus, as you see procreation does affect someone...

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 th...

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 l...

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/impositio...

Some say the Mongolian invasion contributed to the downfall of the Golden Age of Islam, especially the sack of Baghdad in 1258 and the destruction of ...

True about Renaissance and philosophy. Philosophy was locked up in dogma until that point, for the most part.

If I break your argument down, you seem to be saying that: Future people's suffering is less important than current people's hopefulness.. Wouldn't it...

Yeah but for our daily interactions, and my daily identity as a person makes decisions as if it wasn't. There is no way to tell which decision was pre...

Ok, so my position was that the enslavement of the slave was wrong, whether the slave was happy or not.

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 tak...

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 debat...

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.. Rememb...

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 s...

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 p...

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...

Then I think we should be done arguing.

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:

Good. Then my argument is follows from there. I admitted it can even be subjective, instead of some objective list of wrongs. As long as you think non...

No buddy, I am answering your question. I said it was definitional. Do we agree on the definitions? I am answering your question, but this requires yo...

Micro/macro fallacy or somesuch similar thing. Answer the question, and don't give an example as if this covers all cases.

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 t...

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 ...

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 ye...

Here's the real question. Does it matter, if the only default is to think I do? Everything else goes from there.

Interesting. Not the reasons I am advocating, but too much population is bound to be bad somewhere, even for our oh-so-clever species.

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.

I think this makes sense. Children do typically represent hope. Without the prospect of hope, people tend towards angst and despair. A typical normall...

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...

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-t...

I don't think this answers the objections I raised about the distinction between the daily life and meta determinism problem. You will still act in su...

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 ...

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, ...

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,...