A simple reason to refrain from procreation

[RRL]

MATURE CONTENT WARNING; proceed at your own risk.

There are multiple pieces of reasoning that I think could be put forward in support of the philosophical position of antinatalism, but I think the following is really all one needs to see that it is unethical, wrong, and even evil to bring new people into the world.

Regardless of what frame of mind a male and female are in when they decide to have a child, it is, sadly and unfortunately, within the realm of possibility that they will end up being a monster to that child one day, via either their own bad choices, or no fault of their own. And, I'm not saying this lightly, here. I mean seriously monsterous, evil stuff. If you don't believe me, and you need examples, do some research and find out about the horrible things that parents have done to their children.

In my own life alone, and this isn't all that bad, honestly, my own mother tried to commit suicide a few years ago, she would have left me and my four siblings behind, including a brother with autism, whom she supposedly cares about so much and loves so much, to deal with the aftermath.....Gee, thanks mom. So loving and caring. And not only that, the note she left behind to my dad was spiteful. My next youngest brother is the one that found her out on the road, had to help talk her out of it, etc. She was in bad shape. Apparently cussing up a storm, saying "f*** God" (oh the irony, the woman who all but shoved Christianity down my throat growing up). Then, around the same time, my dad and brother got into it, dad got angry at brother and punched him in the eye. Just unreal. I knew the world was messed up by then, but great day. And again, this wasn't all that bad compared to some of the stuff people put their children through. Still, what me and my siblings have gone through, no one should have to go through that, there's no excuse for it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, there's been plenty more dysfunction over the years...

Parents are supposed to be the protectors of their children, their nurterers, the two bastions in their children's lives...And yet, it's possible for parents to be complete monsters to their children.

When you are considering procreating with someone, and you look into the future and realize that you could end up being a monster to your child, how could you ever bring them into existence after realizing that? How? How is that loving, compassionate, and merciful? How could you risk bringing someone into existence who looks up to you, loves you, finds security in you, when it is possible that one day, after you have horrifically injured them or one of their siblings, they look up at you with heartbroken and pitiful eyes? How could you risk putting a sentient being in that position?

You owe it to your potential child to refrain from bringing them into existence in this world; it's the best thing you could ever do for them. Better than getting a hole drilled their through their skull by torturers working for a military dictatorship in some crap central american country. But hey, what do I do know? God knows best, right? Please. Do I seem bitter? I couldn't possibly begin to understand why. Oh, maybe it's because I have an idea of how sick and demented the world is, and I'm not living in denial of it like you folks are.

Here's the thing: Even if you think you are "mentally and emotionally strong" and can handle what might happen, what about your child? Part of true love, whether it be familial, paternal, romantic, etc, is wanting what is best for the other person regardless of what you DESIRE. You really should think outside of yourself, and what you desire, and think about your potential child and what you could potentially end up putting them through. This is not about you.

Nothing is ever harmed by not coming existence, but people who come into existence ARE harmed, and are harmed horrifically by their parents, the two people who are supposed to be the best people in their lives. So, what's the harm in refraining from procreating?

A guardian does whatever it takes to protect those within their care, even at the expense of themselves. The best way to protect your children from what you could possibly do to them, and from the rest of the evil of the world, is simply never bring them into existence. That to me is love. That is compassion. That is mercy. If refraining from procreating means you have to forgo your desire to have children, a desire which ultimately is selfish, then so be it. Like I said, a guardian does whatever it takes to protect those within their care, even at the expense of themselves. Maybe then you, Christian, will begin to understand the meaning of sacrifice, honor, duty, service, love, compassion, and mercy.

And please, spare me the "Jesus/God/Yahweh/Yah/Yeh/Yahud/Yoda yoda yuda makes everything better" stuff. Sometimes, people don't get healing in this life. Sometimes people's lives are pretty much ruined beyond repair. And for what? Before they existed, they were not suffering. There was no need for them to exist in the first place. Let them remain in the void, let them remain in the blissful peace of non-existence. Spare them your hurt, drama, pain, dysfinction, horrific actions, and selfish, dirty souls.

And hey, this applies even more strongly to atheists, ignostics, nihilists, etc. If there is no justice, no meaning, no god, and no true good, why would you EVER bring a child into this monkey circus?

Question for debate: Is there any possible reason why it actually is ok to procreate despite what I just talked about?

[Zzyzx]

.

You can't protect imaginary things. If something doesn't exist you can't protect it.

What theists actually attempt to protect are their TALES about gods and their CLAIMS of knowledge about gods.

They often also attempt to justify their god beliefs and perhaps attempt to induce others to take up those beliefs.

[Bust Nak]

Refraining from bringing potential people into existence is one way of protecting people from undue harm. It isn't the only way, but it is one way. Do you agree?

Sure.

[RRL]

[Replying to post 31 by RRL]

In a word, yes.

Ok.

Now, next step. Refraining from bringing potential people into existence is one way of protecting people from undue harm. It isn't the only way, but it is one way. Do you agree?

You can't protect imaginary things. If something doesn't exist you can't protect it.

It's not imaginary, though, it's potential. This is about looking into the future and considering the possibility that the potential children you could bring into the world could suffer horribly, and not bringing them into the world to protect them from that. In other matters, such as a female taking care of herself so as not to damage the eggs she has (females get all the eggs they will ever have when they reach sexual maturity, so any damage done to them is lasting; there's no "reload" like with a male's sperm), you would agree that it is ethically good for the female to take care of herself so as to protect any potential children she might have from health problems due to the eggs being damaged. So then why are you employing a double standard here?

[RRL]

Refraining from bringing potential people into existence is one way of protecting people from undue harm. It isn't the only way, but it is one way. Do you agree?

Sure.

Ok.

So, if we should protect people from undue harm as much as possible, and refraining from procreating is one way of doing that, then why wouldn't you refrain from procreation? What's the hang up here?

If you say "Because x amount of people won't get to experience good stuff in life", that is not a valid reason to throw refraining from procreation out the window as one way of protecting people from undue harm, because those potential people that could have existed not coming into existence are not being denied said good stuff in life by not being brought into existence.

[Bust Nak]

So, if we should protect people from undue harm as much as possible, and refraining from procreating is one way of doing that, then why wouldn't you refrain from procreation? What's the hang up here?

Because there is a better alternative.

If you say "Because x amount of people won't get to experience good stuff in life", that is not a valid reason to throw refraining from procreation out the window as one way of protecting people from undue harm, because those potential people that could have existed not coming into existence are not being denied said good stuff in life by not being brought into existence.

But I am not doing that, I am not throwing refraining from procreation out the window. It is discarded after careful consideration; It is a valid option, just not the best option when all the factors are taken into account.

There are two conflicting goals here, to protect potential people from potential harm, and to gift potential people with potential boons. Evaluate the risk and reward and decide which is the better way to process. For people in my situation, it's procreation.

[RRL]

So, if we should protect people from undue harm as much as possible, and refraining from procreating is one way of doing that, then why wouldn't you refrain from procreation? What's the hang up here?

Because there is a better alternative.

If you say "Because x amount of people won't get to experience good stuff in life", that is not a valid reason to throw refraining from procreation out the window as one way of protecting people from undue harm, because those potential people that could have existed not coming into existence are not being denied said good stuff in life by not being brought into existence.

But I am not doing that, I am not throwing refraining from procreation out the window. It is discarded after careful consideration; It is a valid option, just not the best option when all the factors are taken into account.

There are two conflicting goals here, to protect potential people from potential harm, and to gift potential people with potential boons. Evaluate the risk and reward and decide which is the better way to process. For people in my situation, it's procreation.

Throw it out the window, discard it, that's semantics, if it bothers you that much, say you are discarding it.....Lol.

Refraining from procreation actually IS the best option, because you have no good reason to procreate, and, at least one good reason to refrain from procreation.

[Bust Nak]

Throw it out the window, discard it, that's semantics, if it bothers you that much, say you are discarding it.....Lol.

It does matter because "x amount of people won't get to experience good stuff in life" is a valid reason to discard the idea of refraining from procreation.

Refraining from procreation actually IS the best option, because you have no good reason to procreate, and, at least one good reason to refrain from procreation.

You don't know enough about me to make that suggestion. I have evaluate the risk and reward for my situation, you haven't done that because you can't.

Perhaps you have no good reason to procreate, it may well be the best option for you, you can be the judge of that. I have plenty of good reasons to procreate, more so that I have from refraining. I've already outline what these are as boons to give.

[RRL]

Throw it out the window, discard it, that's semantics, if it bothers you that much, say you are discarding it.....Lol.

It does matter because "x amount of people won't get to experience good stuff in life" is a valid reason to discard the idea of refraining from procreation.

It is not a valid reason, because A) There's no reason why x amount of people have to come into existence and get to experience good stuff in life, B) There is no ethical obligation to see to it that x amount of people come into existence and get to experience good stuff in life, C) x amount of people are not being harmed ever, in any way whatsoever, when x amount of people don't come into existence and get to experience good stuff, and D) y amount of people suffer horrifically after being brought into existence as a consequence of the process that makes it possible for x amount of people to come into existence and get to experience good stuff.

Refraining from procreation actually IS the best option, because you have no good reason to procreate, and, at least one good reason to refrain from procreation.

You don't know enough about me to make that suggestion. I have evaluate the risk and reward for my situation, you haven't done that because you can't.

Perhaps you have no good reason to procreate, it may well be the best option for you, you can be the judge of that. I have plenty of good reasons to procreate, more so that I have from refraining. I've already outline what these are as boons to give.

No offense, but I don't need to know you at all to know that whatever reasons you have for being ok with procreation instead of taking the position that we have an ethical obligation to not procreate, they are not valid. I don't care what your reasons are, they are not valid.

I think what may be at the crux of our discussion and disagreement here, is that you are approaching this from the perspective of positive utilitarianism, which is the view that it is ethical to maximize overall happiness or pleasure, even if it is at the expense of some, even if it means some poor unlucky you know what gets their nuts stepped on, while I am coming at this from the perspective of negative utilitarianism, which is the view that it is ethical to minimize overall suffering or pain.

Think about the following:

1) I burn someone's face off with hydroflouric acid and every person in the US gets 1 million dollars deposited into their bank account

2) I burn someone's face off with hydroflouric acid and every person in the US gets saved from that same fate

Either way, something horrific is going to happen, but in the first, it really seems screwed up to do that to that one person just so other people get to receive the benefit of having a lot of money deposited into their bank account. The second one, while it's still horrific, seems to be justifiable as it's preventing a far, far worse outcome. This kind of decision is what is at the root of just about every difficult decision that military people, police workers, firefighters, and EMS, and intelligence/espionage people have ever made (whether a given military action is right to begin with is a whole different debate, I'm just talking about people who are working with the situation they have, and are trying to prevent a worse outcome). And basically, what YOU are arguing for, is the former...

[Bust Nak]

It is not a valid reason, because A) There's no reason why x amount of people have to come into existence and get to experience good stuff in life

No one proposed such a thing, this is a red herring. That there is no reason that one have to procreate, doesn't mean there is no reason to procreate.

B) There is no ethical obligation to see to it that x amount of people come into existence and get to experience good stuff in life

Sure there is, it increase the amount of happiness for everyone.

C) x amount of people are not being harmed ever, in any way whatsoever, when x amount of people don't come into existence and get to experience good stuff

That makes refraining from procreation moral; it doesn't make procreation immoral.

D) y amount of people suffer horrifically after being brought into existence as a consequence of the process that makes it possible for x amount of people to come into existence and get to experience good stuff.

Already taken into account.

No offense, but I don't need to know you at all to know that whatever reasons you have for being ok with procreation instead of taking the position that we have an ethical obligation to not procreate, they are not valid. I don't care what your reasons are, they are not valid.

That's irrational. You judge them invalid without caring about what my reasons are.

I think what may be at the crux of our discussion and disagreement here, is that you are approaching this from the perspective of positive utilitarianism, which is the view that it is ethical to maximize overall happiness or pleasure, even if it is at the expense of some, even if it means some poor unlucky you know what gets their nuts stepped on, while I am coming at this from the perspective of negative utilitarianism, which is the view that it is ethical to minimize overall suffering or pain...

But maximize overall happiness already covers minimizing overall suffering. Where as you seek to minimizing overall suffering without regard to overall happiness. That's rather short sighted.

And basically, what YOU are arguing for, is the former...

If you assume the former is of a higher utility than the latter. I would argue for whichever is better higher utility, it's not clear at all the former is better.

[RRL]

It is not a valid reason, because A) There's no reason why x amount of people have to come into existence and get to experience good stuff in life

No one proposed such a thing, this is a red herring. That there is no reason that one have to procreate, doesn't mean there is no reason to procreate.

I said that in response to the following that you said: "It does matter because "x amount of people won't get to experience good stuff in life" is a valid reason to discard the idea of refraining from procreation."

B) There is no ethical obligation to see to it that x amount of people come into existence and get to experience good stuff in life

Sure there is, it increase the amount of happiness for everyone.

First, it increasing the amount of happiness for everyone, with everyone being humanity as a whole, is highly variable, it depends on each individual. Most people are average or crummy, never doing anything exceptional with their lives, either because they arent capable, or they dont care.

Second, it increasing happiness for each individual matters only once they come into existence. There is no need for someone to come into exist in the first place. There's nothing wrong with potential people remaining potential people, and there's all kinds of things wrong with people suffering horrifically for no apparent, good reasons.

C) x amount of people are not being harmed ever, in any way whatsoever, when x amount of people don't come into existence and get to experience good stuff

That makes refraining from procreation moral; it doesn't make procreation immoral.

Yes, but if you accept this, then going from there, if potential people are not being harmed, and real people are harmed, then there's no reason why you shouldn't refrain from procreation IF you agree that we should try to minimize human suffering as much as possible.

If you agree that minimizing human suffering is ethical, and that refraining from procreation is one way of minimizing human suffering, then it follows that refraining from procreation is ethical. This is really simple. However, you are probably just going to sit there and say it doesn't follow because, possibly for biological reasons and/or psychological factors (there are unpleasant, depressing implications that can come with admitting that it is ethical that we refrain from procreation), you don't want to admit that refraining from procreation is ethical.

D) y amount of people suffer horrifically after being brought into existence as a consequence of the process that makes it possible for x amount of people to come into existence and get to experience good stuff.

Already taken into account.

Taken into account in your positive utilitarian calculus?

No offense, but I don't need to know you at all to know that whatever reasons you have for being ok with procreation instead of taking the position that we have an ethical obligation to not procreate, they are not valid. I don't care what your reasons are, they are not valid.

That's irrational. You judge them invalid without caring about what my reasons are.

Fair enough. That said, I can't think of any valid reasons you could put forward. I'm all ears.

I think what may be at the crux of our discussion and disagreement here, is that you are approaching this from the perspective of positive utilitarianism, which is the view that it is ethical to maximize overall happiness or pleasure, even if it is at the expense of some, even if it means some poor unlucky you know what gets their nuts stepped on, while I am coming at this from the perspective of negative utilitarianism, which is the view that it is ethical to minimize overall suffering or pain...

But maximize overall happiness already covers minimizing overall suffering. Where as you seek to minimizing overall suffering without regard to overall happiness. That's rather short sighted.

I don't want to sound snotty or condescending, but you show here that you lack understanding of utilitarianism in terms of hardcore philosophy.

Positive utilitarianism seeks to maximize the happiness of everyone in the group affected by a decision (tribe, town, city, territory, nation, humanity), whereas negative utilitarianism seeks to minimize overall suffering for everyone in the group affected by a decision. The difference is that positive utilitarianism prioritizes maximizing happiness over minimizing suffering, whereas negative utilitarianism prioritizes minimizing overall suffering over maximizing overall happiness.

I'm fine with overall happiness is being maximized so long as minimizing suffering is first met as a condition.

Consider the following scenarios:

Scenario 1: You are presented with a choice: You burn some poor unlucky dude's face off with acid in exchange for everyone in the United States getting 1 million dollars put into their bank account, or you refrain from doing that and keep going about your business

Scenario 2: You are presented with a choice: You burn some poor unlucky dude's face off with acid in exchange for everyone in the United States having the same thing done to them, or you do nothing and everyone in the United States has their faces burned off with acid.

In the first scenario, if you choose to burn the dude's face off, that maximizes overall happiness (or at least increases the chances of it, no gurantee people will be happy with more money), and that would be a positive utilitarian decision. However, do keep in mind that in doing this, you have trampled on the rights of the individual whose face you burned off with acid in pursuing your goal of maximizing overall happiness, did something really crummy to someone, and possibly ruined their life.

In the second scenario, if you choose to burn the dude's face off, that minimizes overall suffering. It's horrific, but you were put in a position where you had no choice but to act to protect the interests of the group.

That's another difference between positive and negative utilitarians; NUs think the rights of the individual can be overridden only when it is a consequence of protecting the group, while PUs think it's acceptable to trample on the rights of the individual so someone can get their pumpkin spice latte...That's really sorry and crummy, and when you think about it, downright pathetic.

To me, and I don't think I'm the only one that sees it this way, it's really screwed up to ruin that dude's life just so people can get more money, even if it maximizes overall happiness. With the second scenario, it's still horrific, but it's seen as an action which must be undertaken because protecting the group and minimizing overall suffering is the right thing to do.

Positive utilitarianism would have us screw one or more people's lives up if it is projected that doing so will maximize overall happiness, while negative utilitarianism would have us screw one or more people's lives up ONLY if it is the only way to protect the group and minimize overall suffering. PU is active about screwing people's lives up, while NU is passive about screwing people's lives up.

Our global system relies on exploiting people and animals to various degrees so that people can have cheap goods, I think that is straight up wrong, but in your positive utilitarian framework, if it maximizes overall happiness, there's nothing wrong with people and animals being exploited and suffering, even in cases of horrific and extreme suffering...