Talk:Asymmetry (population ethics)

Merge
Proposing page merge between Benatar's asymmetry argument and Asymmetry (population ethics). Fephisto (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I think this page should be merged with Benatar's asymmetry argument. Particularly, Benatar's asymmetry argument into Asymmetry (population ethics).
 * They both deal with the same subject ( WP:REDUNDANT ), and in fact, the Benatar page appears to be a nice subset of this page.
 * Both pages are relatively short, and could benefit.
 * They table explanation would be nice to keep in one location.

Fephisto (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I agree with Fanastiera points by and large (although I may have phrased some of them slightly differently), so I won't repeat their arguments again. I'll merely offer three further arguments for not merging.
 * 1. Benatar himself treats both asymmetries as distinct subjects.
 * 2.By your logic, the suffering-focused ethics page should also be merged with this page, since the similarities between all these asymmetries are roughly the same: certain asymmetries (in this case the asymmetry between positive and negative wellbeing) in other moral domains help explain the population ethics asymmetry, so they're the same topic.
 * 3. The population ethics asymmetry is neutral in the positive side. You don't have a duty (or it's not better, depending on whether we talk about the evaluative or the deontic asymmetry) to procreate, but procreating isn't wrong per se. On Benatar's view, procreating is wrong. In other words, according to Benatar, there's always a pro tanto reason not to procreate (it would cause a harm). However, most people that find the asymmetry compelling think that there are neither pro tanto reasons in favor nor against bringing happy individuals into existence. Mat Rozas (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for pinging me about the proposed merge. I will now present arguments against the proposal:


 * The subject is significantly different. Asymmetry (population ethics) deals with the morality of bringing individuals into existence, so it is focused on the procreators (in general). Benatar's asymmetry argument deals with comparison of values between existing and never existing individuals, so it is focused on potential future beings (a strictly person-affecting view).
 * Some considerations similar to the ones in Asymmetry (population ethics) are treated in Benatar's asymmetry argument as things to be explained by Benatar's asymmetry - the four basic asymmetries.
 * The table is, AFAIK, applicable only to Benatar's asymmetry argument. It would be misleading to have it in Asymmetry (population ethics), as that could imply that it is applicable to many arguments talked about in Asymmetry (population ethics).
 * There is already a decent amount of responses to Benatar's asymmetry argument, which could potentially be incorporated into a 'Criticism' section. It would make sense to leave the page separate, so that it doesn't grow too much, and is self-contained.
 * Benatar's asymmetry argument is an argument for Antinatalism, whereas considerations from Asymmetry (population ethics) do not lead to such conclusions, in general.
 * Lacks of support in philosophical literature: In general, philosophers discussing Asymmetry (population ethics) are not discussing Benatar's asymmetry argument and vice-versa. That is, philosophers themselves seem to treat these topics as significantly separate.

This is just my view on the proposal, of course. And I am interested to read what others have to say on the matter. Fantastiera (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Doesn't every point you bring up, minus the fourth and sixth, show that Benatar's argument should be considered a subset of asymmetry arguments in population ethics? Fephisto (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)