[split] Ethics - parental responsibility re: children

[The Grand Nudger]

@Ahriman
Show your work. It should be easy, you'll only require a single competent argument, as I make no distinction between the morally correct and the logically correct. You can get away with half the effort. As convenience would have it, anti natalism is also a realist ethical position, just like mine.
@Rev. Rye
I wouldn't exactly point to their example as competent moral agents in this regard. I meant that you could find broad agreement between anti natalists and people who reject the anti natalist position - that there are some things you should be prepared to do if you plan on having a child. It's not a controversial opinion, and it's not the anti-natalist position, anyway. Similarly, it's not disputed between anti natalists and people who reject the anti natalist position that a person can be, might be, or even is, a shitty candidate for parenthood. This is also not the anti-natalist position, and can't even approach a demonstration of it's accuracy.

It's bound to cause pain and misery, even amongst some good parent candidates, that abortion is a unilateral option. That's an unfortunate consequence of biology, but unavoidable if we wish to prevent an even greater real and potential harm. That we can understand this and even organize our laws to respect this fact of mere reality is a handy demonstration that not everything in life is or has to be a raging dumpster fire. It's not hard to find the less than shitty origins of our shitty behavior, which, I think, is a tip of the hat to some anti natalist positions themselves. For balance.

[Ahriman]

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

[Jehanne]

The use of the word "dissolution" with respect to "human existence" is profoundly disturbing, as it appears that you are referring to the collective existence of Humanity as opposed to an individual human being.

[Ahriman]

The use of the word "dissolution" with respect to "human existence" is profoundly disturbing, as it appears that you are referring to the collective existence of Humanity as opposed to an individual human being.

Well yeah, that's what I mean. What would the "dissolution" of one person accomplish?

---

There is really no doubt that my pathological irresponsibility makes me believe these things, but at the same time, it's not like anything I'm saying is untrue. It's pretty much all true.

[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.

[Ahriman]

Oh, but someone has to eat dog shit for you to eat cake. You know that's true.

Does humanity have a moral obligation to terminate itself, to spare (or prevent) an unlucky few from intolerable suffering? Arguably, yes. While all you happy (or happy enough) optimists go about your day, thinking life is good, there will always be a few malcontents who hate being alive, and just want the whole thing to end, as that would be the ideal solution, for a number of reasons. One of those reasons being, if reincarnation is real, no more humans means no more reincarnation, and thus, a guaranteed end to human suffering.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not a cannibal, so...no...it's not true - though it probably is true that someone does eat dogshit so I can eat cake even though there's no real necessity for it. A good argument for making the world a better place, to my mind, not for emptying it of people - the only agents we're aware of that could make life a better place.

Anti natalism strikes again - by foreclosing on the good people of the world doing good work in a life they enjoy and wish to extend to others. No babies, no ghandis. No babies, no jesues. No babies.... At any rate, the mere presence of suffering in life does not satisfy the anti natalist position. Not the first time you mentioned it, not the many times since. It takes more, as we commonly allow that suffering can be present without that yielding a negative moral appraisal..or even aggregate content appraisal..by default.

[Ahriman]

Like I said before, "making the world a better place" is like polishing a turd. Life/existence, at least in this world, is fundamentally flawed, so any efforts to "make the world a better place" are misguided at best, and malevolent at worst.

[The Grand Nudger]

The anti natalist position is not that "Ahri is of the opinion that life is a turd". Anti natalism is a realist ethical position - allegedly- not a laundry list of your subjective complaints. Frankly, anti natalism explicitly attempts to polish that turd by emptying the world of people. That's how they think this world would be made better, or less shitty. If you don't think there's any point to polishing a turd, then why would there be any point to polishing it that way?

I see another accusation that you're as likely to flesh out as the previous claim that anyone who disagrees with you is insane and irrational, and ofc they're all cowards...and now they're misguided and malevolent. You're describing your misanthropy and fatalism, not an ethical position.

People shouldn't have kids because people suck! Pure misanthropy.
People shouldn't have kids because life sucks! Pure fatalism.
People shouldn't have kids because we possess a moral duty to other people which we are uniformly incapable of satisfying, in fact, even assuming people are good and life doesn't suck. Anti natalism. The anti natalist objection from consent, for example..works (if it works) just as well if the life you're being born into is a heavenly paradise. No matter, you weren't asked, you couldn't have consented. This means that the person who brought you into that world, as perfect as it may be, may have failed to live a minimally ethical life.

[Ahriman]

Do you have any self-awareness at all? How can you allow suffering to exist, and just say, "This is fine, this suffering is fine, nothing needs to be done about it, or at least, no fundamental changes need to be made"? A system (in this case, life/existence) that includes suffering as one of its fundamental features, is a system that should be collapsed.

---

Okay, well maybe words like coward/insane/irrational/misguided/malevolent are too strong. But you're missing my point. My point is, there is definitely something wrong with the way most people apprehend reality, because most people don't see suffering as being enough of a problem to do anything about it (in any meaningful way).