Talk:Asymmetry (population ethics)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 2 November 2015 by reviewer SwisterTwister (talk · contribs).

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given that the topics are independently notable, even if Benatar's asymmetry argument is a subset of Asymmetry (population ethics); objections and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mat Rozas, Ekonap, Rjwilmsi, Fantastiera, and Fram: Proposing page merge between Benatar's asymmetry argument and Asymmetry (population ethics). Fephisto (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.