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...

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Katrisia@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nothing is objective to our knowledge

Horrible news for physicists

[–] Katrisia@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Don't worry. Good physicists know it as they study epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of physics, among other things.