Something that no one has discussed in this highly enlightened conversation here is the issue of consent. A person cannot consent to being born. Full stop. I don’t know of a way around that besides ignoring it.
But they also can’t request it. What do you do for the people who don’t exist yet that desire existence?
I should note that I have gone around the local NICU and requested all the children present to indicate a desire to stop existing. None of them agreed. Many of them were struggling mightily to continue to exist. A few even yelled at me for asking the question. I’ll admit its a small sample size, but hard to argue with a 100% existence endorsement.
My adopted son was born premature, and I’m currently doing a daily sabbatical to check on him. By all rights, he shouldn’t be alive. One of the brighter moments of being an American right now is standing in a room full of babies whose lives hinge on our willingness to fund Medicaid. Every one of these beds is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours to maintain. And people are dedicating their entire careers to bringing early newborns off the brink of death.
Its put a whole new spin on the ideas of natalism and anti-natalism. So easy to see some chud troll on the internet saying we should pull the plug, because none of these kids “consented” to keep breathing. But then you’ve got rooms full of compassion and care and joy, as these medical workers weenie all these little guys and girls into the world with the power of modern medicine. Stunning and majestic. The NICU Ward should be on the god damned American Flag. Its a testament to our greatness.
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating for any baby to be taken off life support, that’s a pretty abhorrent thing to accuse me of, if that’s what you meant.
I work in critical care and routinely bring people back from the brink of death. With a living being, unless otherwise stated, their consent to life saving treatment is implied, and I’m happy to give it.
Philosophically, I’m just not convinced that there is such a thing as an implied consent to “make me exist when I don’t exist already”.
That’s just how evolution works- something that already exists and is driven to stay alive is more likely to pass on its genetics than something that is not driven to stay alive. This fact has nothing to do with the philosophy of consenting to exist in the first place.
Edit: missed your first question. Something that does not exist cannot desire.
Because the typical standard of consent is that in order to do something to someone, you should have informed consent. If you cannot obtain that, then you do not do the thing. Something that does not exist cannot give informed consent, therefore you should not do the thing.
Non-interference is a good default position to have, but we are capable of acting on behalf of others when we have a certain threshold of confidence for what they would want in a situation. Otherwise, we would consider it wrong to give CPR to an unconscious person.
When it comes to life, people overwhelmingly prefer to continue existing when they have the power to choose. So it makes sense for us to presume that a hypothetical person would choose to be born given the opportunity.
If we are to assume that every non-existent person desires to exist, and that we have the obligation to not block this, then we should be having children whenever possible as to not block anyone.
Let’s visualize this. If I decide to wait for another partner and a certain age, the humans that I could create with my current sexual partner in these years are screaming to be born and I’m ignoring them. I’m not letting Laura or Ignacio be born, and over them I’m preferring Óscar who will be born in 2028 of a different father. Am I doing something morally incorrect at negating Laura’s and Ignacio’s right to be? If so, as I said, you agree we have the obligation of having children whenever possible and we better start now you and me and everyone else reading. If not, if we don’t have this obligation, then there’s no problem if I skip Laura this year, Ignacio the next and Óscar and others later. Unless you want to save this by saying some people deserve to come into existence more than others, but I already say I won’t agree with that.
Other people would argue in a different way. There are people who would say that even if we create good by bringing people that do consent retrospectively, we also harm forcing life into people that wouldn’t and don’t want life. And even if the proportion is absurd, not harming is always the priority over giving pleasure. This is the idea behind negative utilitarianism and other ethical paradigms. This also has been studied by philosopher David Benatar who reframed it, and now that’s called “Benatar asymmetry” (but the question is older than him).
If we are to assume that every non-existent person desires to exist, and that we have the obligation to not block this, then we should be having children whenever possible as to not block anyone.
Sure. This is the philosophical counterpoint to the “Nobody consented to exist so it is unethnical to bring anyone into the world”. You spin it to argue everyone has a right to exist and you end up with some sort of neoliberal spin on the Quiverfull movement.
There are people who would say that even if we create good by bringing people that do consent retrospectively, we also harm forcing life into people that wouldn’t and don’t want life.
You’re assuming objective standards for “good” and “harm” that aren’t a given. And you’re still ultimately dictating a choice on behalf of other people - both people who are being born and people who are doing the birthing. I mean, ffs, how do you even approach the idea of consent while intruding on two people in the act of coitus? “Stop nutting! You’re violating the potential rights of a potential person!” is a thing you get to say only when you’ve disregarded the actual rights of an actual person.
not harming is always the priority over giving pleasure
That’s a personal ideal, not a functional standard. In practice, people routinely engage in socially harmful practices for the sake of personal pleasure. And that goes well beyond sex. Let me know when we abolish the cruise line industry and then maybe you can come back and discuss chopping off everyone’s balls for the sake of potentially existent people.
now that’s called “Benatar asymmetry”
The theory is rooted in the perspective that pain is bad. But even this isn’t an objective standard.
Nothing is objective to our knowledge and nothing is a given, that’s the point. I was not trying to declare those things as truths but trying to explain that there is room to consider them (e.g., to consider that little pain weighs more than enormous pleasure). I cited a philosopher who does, but there are many others. Those are the topics relevant to this discussion.
Antinatalism is not a negative attitude towards sex nor children.
People are free, free enough to create life. The antinatalist wonders if the people creating it have the right to do so, if it hurts in some way (and who), and if we should continue to do so. The answers are very different even among antinatalists. The only thing they have in common is that they do not approve ethically of creating new [human] lives. You can take out the square brackets for some.
And… that’s it. I understand if many here believe that procreating is morally neutral or good, but I think there is validity in questioning it or in believing that it is morally incorrect. We all have our reasons and nobody ultimately knows.
The problem I have with your argument is that it could easily be used to justify rape. A person who is incapable of giving consent is also incapable of requesting things, so does that make it okay to just assume consent?
It means that the original argument of consent to life is invalid. Consent isn’t possible until life. It’s a great philosophical problem but not one with a known solution.
Another note on the original post, their argument could also be used to justify going through the NICU and killing every newborn. So there’s a clear ‘pro life’ bias going on here, with acts that bring more life being seen as good, regardless of consent. Wouldn’t a more reasoned approach be to maintain, keep those who are alive, alive, and those not yet existing, unexisting? Forcing a being across the border is bad, regardless of direction.
For general rape, the victim is typically capable of giving consent but chooses not to, meaning we know the rapist is violating them. For situations where the victim is incapable of consenting, it is true that we are assuming a position for them. As a society, we have observed that being made to have sex in a vulnerable position is a negative experience, so it makes sense to extrapolate they would be opposed if they were capable of choosing.
For life, the observation is different. Once people have the power to knowingly “opt out” of existing, they rarely do. Most people instead prefer existing and consider it to be positive. So we should assume a hypothetical person would also choose to be born when acting on their behalf.
If my understanding of longtermism is correct, it’s more of a function of utilitarianism. If one wants to do the most good for the most people, then it makes some amount of sense to focus on the far future where presumably there will be more people.
Their consent is irrelevant, which is kind of the opposite of what I’m saying, which is that consent is relevant.
I think you make a great point. Have you read about the problems with “person-affecting views”? It’s admittedly a bit harder to grasp, but doesn’t seem less problematic to me.
Technically, sure. You are free to go live in the woods, off grid, somewhere. Or you are free to violate this particular social contract and deal with the consequences.
That’s legally not possible. Every piece of land belongs to someone already, either a private entity or a government. You might be able to live somewhere in a forest, but you’re at the mercy of the entity that owns the land you live on.
You could technically live in the ocean, but I’m no fish lol
With all due respect but that might be the worst take I’ve heard this week.
A currencies value is determined by the economy behind it. There’s a reason why countries with lots of exports have a strong currency, while countries that don’t are weaker in comparison.
Obviously, it’s not the sole reason - economy is complex. But taxes have no role in a currencies value.
I mean I know there’s no way to obtain that consent, but I did let my parents know that they should have just gotten the abortion since the condom ripped.
I wasn’t planned, and I shouldn’t have been born into that family. None of them were ready or cared to be ready or even cared to be with each other as they almost immediately split after my birth.
One thing I’ll literally NEVER understand are the women on dating sites with literal newborns… What the actual fuck?
Something that no one has discussed in this highly enlightened conversation here is the issue of consent. A person cannot consent to being born. Full stop. I don’t know of a way around that besides ignoring it.
But they also can’t request it. What do you do for the people who don’t exist yet that desire existence?
I should note that I have gone around the local NICU and requested all the children present to indicate a desire to stop existing. None of them agreed. Many of them were struggling mightily to continue to exist. A few even yelled at me for asking the question. I’ll admit its a small sample size, but hard to argue with a 100% existence endorsement.
Fuck me that’s the best counter point I have heard so far. Thanks!
(In case you really work at a NICU: thank you so much for your work.)
My adopted son was born premature, and I’m currently doing a daily sabbatical to check on him. By all rights, he shouldn’t be alive. One of the brighter moments of being an American right now is standing in a room full of babies whose lives hinge on our willingness to fund Medicaid. Every one of these beds is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours to maintain. And people are dedicating their entire careers to bringing early newborns off the brink of death.
Its put a whole new spin on the ideas of natalism and anti-natalism. So easy to see some chud troll on the internet saying we should pull the plug, because none of these kids “consented” to keep breathing. But then you’ve got rooms full of compassion and care and joy, as these medical workers weenie all these little guys and girls into the world with the power of modern medicine. Stunning and majestic. The NICU Ward should be on the god damned American Flag. Its a testament to our greatness.
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating for any baby to be taken off life support, that’s a pretty abhorrent thing to accuse me of, if that’s what you meant.
I work in critical care and routinely bring people back from the brink of death. With a living being, unless otherwise stated, their consent to life saving treatment is implied, and I’m happy to give it.
Philosophically, I’m just not convinced that there is such a thing as an implied consent to “make me exist when I don’t exist already”.
That’s just how evolution works- something that already exists and is driven to stay alive is more likely to pass on its genetics than something that is not driven to stay alive. This fact has nothing to do with the philosophy of consenting to exist in the first place.
Edit: missed your first question. Something that does not exist cannot desire.
But how can something that doesn’t exist have the capability of consent being violated?
Because the typical standard of consent is that in order to do something to someone, you should have informed consent. If you cannot obtain that, then you do not do the thing. Something that does not exist cannot give informed consent, therefore you should not do the thing.
I knowhow consent works, but existence is the precondition for anything constent-related, including violationg consent.
Non-interference is a good default position to have, but we are capable of acting on behalf of others when we have a certain threshold of confidence for what they would want in a situation. Otherwise, we would consider it wrong to give CPR to an unconscious person.
When it comes to life, people overwhelmingly prefer to continue existing when they have the power to choose. So it makes sense for us to presume that a hypothetical person would choose to be born given the opportunity.
If living organisms are predisposed to prefer existence, this would imply existence is an inherently preferable state.
Prove it
It usually is- to a living organism, which is not what we’re talking about.
Come on bro you can’t be serious about this.
😂 Made my day
If we are to assume that every non-existent person desires to exist, and that we have the obligation to not block this, then we should be having children whenever possible as to not block anyone.
Let’s visualize this. If I decide to wait for another partner and a certain age, the humans that I could create with my current sexual partner in these years are screaming to be born and I’m ignoring them. I’m not letting Laura or Ignacio be born, and over them I’m preferring Óscar who will be born in 2028 of a different father. Am I doing something morally incorrect at negating Laura’s and Ignacio’s right to be? If so, as I said, you agree we have the obligation of having children whenever possible and we better start now you and me and everyone else reading. If not, if we don’t have this obligation, then there’s no problem if I skip Laura this year, Ignacio the next and Óscar and others later. Unless you want to save this by saying some people deserve to come into existence more than others, but I already say I won’t agree with that.
Other people would argue in a different way. There are people who would say that even if we create good by bringing people that do consent retrospectively, we also harm forcing life into people that wouldn’t and don’t want life. And even if the proportion is absurd, not harming is always the priority over giving pleasure. This is the idea behind negative utilitarianism and other ethical paradigms. This also has been studied by philosopher David Benatar who reframed it, and now that’s called “Benatar asymmetry” (but the question is older than him).
I hope my English does not betray my explanation…
Sure. This is the philosophical counterpoint to the “Nobody consented to exist so it is unethnical to bring anyone into the world”. You spin it to argue everyone has a right to exist and you end up with some sort of neoliberal spin on the Quiverfull movement.
You’re assuming objective standards for “good” and “harm” that aren’t a given. And you’re still ultimately dictating a choice on behalf of other people - both people who are being born and people who are doing the birthing. I mean, ffs, how do you even approach the idea of consent while intruding on two people in the act of coitus? “Stop nutting! You’re violating the potential rights of a potential person!” is a thing you get to say only when you’ve disregarded the actual rights of an actual person.
That’s a personal ideal, not a functional standard. In practice, people routinely engage in socially harmful practices for the sake of personal pleasure. And that goes well beyond sex. Let me know when we abolish the cruise line industry and then maybe you can come back and discuss chopping off everyone’s balls for the sake of potentially existent people.
The theory is rooted in the perspective that pain is bad. But even this isn’t an objective standard.
Nothing is objective to our knowledge and nothing is a given, that’s the point. I was not trying to declare those things as truths but trying to explain that there is room to consider them (e.g., to consider that little pain weighs more than enormous pleasure). I cited a philosopher who does, but there are many others. Those are the topics relevant to this discussion.
Antinatalism is not a negative attitude towards sex nor children.
People are free, free enough to create life. The antinatalist wonders if the people creating it have the right to do so, if it hurts in some way (and who), and if we should continue to do so. The answers are very different even among antinatalists. The only thing they have in common is that they do not approve ethically of creating new [human] lives. You can take out the square brackets for some.
And… that’s it. I understand if many here believe that procreating is morally neutral or good, but I think there is validity in questioning it or in believing that it is morally incorrect. We all have our reasons and nobody ultimately knows.
Horrible news for physicists
Don’t worry. Good physicists know it as they study epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of physics, among other things.
The problem I have with your argument is that it could easily be used to justify rape. A person who is incapable of giving consent is also incapable of requesting things, so does that make it okay to just assume consent?
It means that the original argument of consent to life is invalid. Consent isn’t possible until life. It’s a great philosophical problem but not one with a known solution.
Another note on the original post, their argument could also be used to justify going through the NICU and killing every newborn. So there’s a clear ‘pro life’ bias going on here, with acts that bring more life being seen as good, regardless of consent. Wouldn’t a more reasoned approach be to maintain, keep those who are alive, alive, and those not yet existing, unexisting? Forcing a being across the border is bad, regardless of direction.
Do you consider all heterosexual sex a form of rape?
For general rape, the victim is typically capable of giving consent but chooses not to, meaning we know the rapist is violating them. For situations where the victim is incapable of consenting, it is true that we are assuming a position for them. As a society, we have observed that being made to have sex in a vulnerable position is a negative experience, so it makes sense to extrapolate they would be opposed if they were capable of choosing.
For life, the observation is different. Once people have the power to knowingly “opt out” of existing, they rarely do. Most people instead prefer existing and consider it to be positive. So we should assume a hypothetical person would also choose to be born when acting on their behalf.
Sorry Timmy, you still have to go to bed.
What’s consent to a being that doesn’t exist?
Nothing, unless they start existing.
So, how does the concept make any sense? Can I get consent from an angel, too?
I’m not sure what your point is here
My point is that the whole premise of “consent for existing” is bogus.
And how does that relate to angels?
They don’t exist either.
We agree there
When you force it into existence, literally everything
I fail to see how the mere concept makes sense right now. That’s the same flawed logic as longtermists use.
If my understanding of longtermism is correct, it’s more of a function of utilitarianism. If one wants to do the most good for the most people, then it makes some amount of sense to focus on the far future where presumably there will be more people. Their consent is irrelevant, which is kind of the opposite of what I’m saying, which is that consent is relevant.
It’s the other side of the same coin. They both argue about the well-being/bad-being of hypothetical humans. It’s bogus, either way.
They are not related because you have to exist to experience well-being or “bad-being”. What I’m talking about is consenting to exist.
Longtermists try to justify their actions by invoking potential, future generations. Those don’t exist either.
They’re presuming that people will exist, which is not a wild assumption
But that’s not a philosophy I particularly subscribe to so I don’t feel compelled to explain or defend it further.
I think you make a great point. Have you read about the problems with “person-affecting views”? It’s admittedly a bit harder to grasp, but doesn’t seem less problematic to me.
Nope
Highly recommend. It’s easy to dismiss as weird bullshit initially but enlightening when you put in the effort to understand.
To be clear, I am no longer strongly convinced of or against person affecting views and take both seriously.
This is a good starting point:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/c6ZYCpq2L46AxSJNy/my-favourite-arguments-against-person-affecting-views
I’m not consenting to paying taxes. Doew that mesn dobby is free now?
Technically, sure. You are free to go live in the woods, off grid, somewhere. Or you are free to violate this particular social contract and deal with the consequences.
That’s legally not possible. Every piece of land belongs to someone already, either a private entity or a government. You might be able to live somewhere in a forest, but you’re at the mercy of the entity that owns the land you live on.
You could technically live in the ocean, but I’m no fish lol
deleted by creator
Taxes are how currency gets its value. So if you plan to stop using taxed currencies, then sure.
With all due respect but that might be the worst take I’ve heard this week.
A currencies value is determined by the economy behind it. There’s a reason why countries with lots of exports have a strong currency, while countries that don’t are weaker in comparison.
Obviously, it’s not the sole reason - economy is complex. But taxes have no role in a currencies value.
I mean I know there’s no way to obtain that consent, but I did let my parents know that they should have just gotten the abortion since the condom ripped.
I wasn’t planned, and I shouldn’t have been born into that family. None of them were ready or cared to be ready or even cared to be with each other as they almost immediately split after my birth.
One thing I’ll literally NEVER understand are the women on dating sites with literal newborns… What the actual fuck?
How long do you think women should wait to date after giving birth?