It's more complex.

  Original Thread. I consider that the most probable explanation is our propensity to reduce anxiety from not knowing  the solution of a complex (relevant) problem. We simply tend to prefer quick idiotic answers to complex issues than living with another ? in our minds. This could apply to our tendency to Manichaeism. Why did this tragedy happen? -> That person was just evil , an idiot , etc. And same for positive choices or even performance. -> That person is just good , talented , etc. The cause and context of many choices or phenomena is probably very complex. Not even psychology can consistently explain many of them. Hell, there are theories in psychology and even schools that are very inconsistent with each other. Yet many people tend to be quick in giving some answer. More than avoiding the  not knowing , it's about closing a system in a cognitive structure as fast as possible, avoiding and removing any potential cognitive dissonance: There is a problem  or riddle re

Since we already exist and we are conscious about it, we are forced to either try to bring others to existence or not. You say we  force  others to exist, and I say you want to  force  others to not exist. Again, we can't ask someone who doesn't exist if he/she wants to exist, as the reply would imply existence in some form. We need other criteria. You say we risk bringing someone to life who may have a shitty life, and I say we risk not bringing someone to life who may have an awesome life. You made a counter-example with 2 lives, a good one vs bad one, neutralizing each other. And I countered it with a gradient, affected by variables like knowledge, technology, resources, education, etc. We can increase the likelihood to have more humans with good lives than humans with bad lives. Now you say that one single bad life would be enough. I say this is a claim, not an argument. But maybe you consider it an axiom: suffering outclasses any amount of pleasure => suffering should b

Original Thread. I didn't mean that total control doesn't matter. I meant that it's impossible to achieve, and we irremediably make many decisions in our lives in probabilistic terms. Including decisions that affect others. Something as simple as being brutally honest with someone and not expecting an aggressive reaction that could hurt us or others; or the decisions any boss has to make and affect the lives of employees, and their families; or even the choices of a president. Total control and absolute responsibility in your terms would also imply to decide for your own children until they die, which would mess up freedom past a reasonable age. Let alone even deciding for the children of your children. You can say there would be implicit consent in my examples, but: 1) It's only to some degree. An abstract range. And in some cases it's not consent, but rather not having any alternative (including social contract... because the alternative is to go to the forest and