[split] Ethics - parental responsibility re: children

[The Grand Nudger]

No, not everything in life is a raging dumpster fire. But that's not the point.

That's certainly the point of anti natalism.  If life isn't sufficiently and uniformly intolerable on moral grounds, the case against life fails to launch even if the case against some peoples lives might stick.

There are (by far) enough negative/unwanted elements of human existence to justify either its dissolution, or a drastic change in how it works (on a fundamental level). Suffering is the only constant in life. In pain, there is suffering. In pleasure, there is suffering. Suffering is the only thing about human existence that can truly be relied upon.  Suffering, of course, is what drives humanity forward. It is what fuels progress, on every level. But why do we even need to progress? Is this "driving forward" of humanity even consensual? Did you, or me, or anyone else, agree to take part in this progress?  Why is suffering, (a fundamentally unwanted thing), needed for progress? What's it all leading toward? Is it even worth it? Is human existence even necessary?

I do agree - in fact I rather enjoy being a part of progress - even when it's difficult and uncomfortable, but I want to point out that I don't think suffering is what drives us forward, and anti natalism isn't a position against progress.

 Why would it be necessary? Because there are good things in life? Well yeah, sure, there are good things in life. But there are also bad things, which makes the whole thing (life/existence) not worth it. It's like, if someone offered some cake to you, (let's assume you like cake), and some parts of the cake were delicious stuffing, while other parts were made of dog poop, and in order to enjoy the cake at all, you had to eat the whole cake, any sane/reasonable person would decline the offer. Life/existence is the same as that cake. Not to mention, of course, that the lowest lows, are always much more bad, than the highest highs are good.

Things being a mix of good and bad hardly renders them worthless. Even if they were majority bad (which they aren't so far as I can tell) they would still have some moral value for the presence of whatever amount of good. Poor analogy.  I don't find that I have to eat dog shit in my life to eat cake....and obviously none of us here have declined life. This, along with the last comment, would actually be detrimental to the anti natalist argument Assume that life is mostly bad stuff just for the shits and giggles. Hell, assume life is a dogshit cake too. Some people would gladly eat that dogshit cake if that's what you had to do to be alive - such is the value they place on life or some thing in it. We're talking about having kids, so that outta pop right out.

It's not exactly hookers and blow all the time raising kids. I strongly doubt that every living person is insane and unreasonable. Stop complaining. Make an ethical case. I have no interest in your complaints, only in what case can be made for anti natalism. Explain why procreation is a moral evil, not your dissatisfaction with life and general lack of purpose. I think you got the closest with consent - but consent is a double edged sword. If we say that we think anti natalism is the correct position because children don't or wouldn't consent to life - that this is why people shouldn't have children...we must accept responsibility for being willing to abrogate the decisions and ignore the consent of those who would or do choose life, both living and unborn. Ironically, the consent argument for anti natalism is also just as competent an argument against anti natalism.

We might suggest, if we're deadset on pursuing it, that we can't really know who would and who wouldn't consent. There's no poll of the unborn (or even the young), so even if some people would - there's no certainty that your child is or will be one of them. Then again, the idea that they might not is allegedly premised on objective facts, so it seems like you can have a pretty good idea, and insomuch as you've addressed those potential objections you will have fulfilled any stated or implicit moral duty you had and removed those determining factors in the prevention of the things anti natalism asserts toward it's conclusion.