Antinatalism
1
Within the purview of meta ethics and normative ethics is a stance known as antinatalism. Put simply, antinatalism is the stance that it is unethical to bring forth new life into the world(stop having babies, because it's immoral).
Traditionally, the view was first coined by a philosopher of the 20th-21st century David Benatar, who put forth the Benatarian Asymmetry.
The argument goes thusly: It is true that to bring a life into this world is to guarantee that it will suffer, at some point, in some way. It is not true that to bring forth a life into this world is to guarantee that it will experience joy and happiness, at some point, and in some way.
Hence, if one is to accept the position that suffering is to be avoided, it is immoral to bring forth a life into this world.
To add, the argument also states that it is impossible to totally get rid of human suffering without ending all human life as we know it. Since killing each other and genocide is only an addition to suffering, we should focus on making our current lives as joyful and blissful as possible, while ensuring no further generations are to be submit to the suffering guaranteed in life.
I find the antinatalist stance to be a ridiculous one, and Benatar's argument tenuous at best.
Here is a short response to this argument, put into normative ethic terms.
The badness of risking harming potential sentient beings depends on so called †˜Bentarian asymmetry’, which in turn depends on a hedonistic and consequentialist idea of goodness, and on a substantive first person metaphysic. I deny that hedonistic consequentialism is sufficient for goodness; and that persons (real or potential) are basic, durable and independent beings. Thus I reject the “risk argument".
To clarify, the risking of harming potential sentient beings, that is, bringing forth new life into this world for them to suffer being a bad thing, is dependent on the normative position of consequentialism. Further, it advocates strongly the hedonistic idea that joy must be preferred at all times over suffering. I reject both consequentialism as a virtue ethicist, as well as hedonism as being sufficient to define that which could be considered 'good'.
The position itself being dependent on a first person metaphysic is, in essence, the pointing out that the position is based not on an entirely normative argument, but one based on...personal opinion.
Not only do I reject the notion that all suffering is necessarily bad and to be avoided, but I also reject the notion that the consequences of an action(that is, causing a potential sentient being to suffer) define the necessary moral equation of the action as being either bad or good.
I judge moral actions on a case by case basis. It could very well be true that bringing a new life into the world would cause it to suffer. However, there are other things to consider than simply that. For instance is it true that the life could also experience more joy than suffering? Is it true that the subject might find some salvation in the melancholy of suffering? Is it true that the parents of the child took this notion of suffering into account, yet decided to bring the life into being anyway, because of beliefs of being able to overcome such adversities?
If any of these are true, then the Asymmetry falls flat as an argument against having a child.
Now, don't get me wrong. I DO advocate that parents need to be more responsible in bringing forth babies and new lives into the world. Knowing that you cannot support a child and raise them efficiently is a good reason to not have that child, as there is some guarantee that the suffering this child will not be able to be overcome, plus there is no guarantee that the child would find some salvation in said suffering, while it is still a possibility.
To summarize: I agree with the premise that responsible notions should be taken into account when having children. And if this were the only premise of an antinatalist, you could even call me one.
However there is no sufficient argument that could be made to categorize all baby making as objectively irresponsible. Antinatalism, in my opinion, is a joke.
Traditionally, the view was first coined by a philosopher of the 20th-21st century David Benatar, who put forth the Benatarian Asymmetry.
The argument goes thusly: It is true that to bring a life into this world is to guarantee that it will suffer, at some point, in some way. It is not true that to bring forth a life into this world is to guarantee that it will experience joy and happiness, at some point, and in some way.
Hence, if one is to accept the position that suffering is to be avoided, it is immoral to bring forth a life into this world.
To add, the argument also states that it is impossible to totally get rid of human suffering without ending all human life as we know it. Since killing each other and genocide is only an addition to suffering, we should focus on making our current lives as joyful and blissful as possible, while ensuring no further generations are to be submit to the suffering guaranteed in life.
I find the antinatalist stance to be a ridiculous one, and Benatar's argument tenuous at best.
Here is a short response to this argument, put into normative ethic terms.
The badness of risking harming potential sentient beings depends on so called †˜Bentarian asymmetry’, which in turn depends on a hedonistic and consequentialist idea of goodness, and on a substantive first person metaphysic. I deny that hedonistic consequentialism is sufficient for goodness; and that persons (real or potential) are basic, durable and independent beings. Thus I reject the “risk argument".
To clarify, the risking of harming potential sentient beings, that is, bringing forth new life into this world for them to suffer being a bad thing, is dependent on the normative position of consequentialism. Further, it advocates strongly the hedonistic idea that joy must be preferred at all times over suffering. I reject both consequentialism as a virtue ethicist, as well as hedonism as being sufficient to define that which could be considered 'good'.
The position itself being dependent on a first person metaphysic is, in essence, the pointing out that the position is based not on an entirely normative argument, but one based on...personal opinion.
Not only do I reject the notion that all suffering is necessarily bad and to be avoided, but I also reject the notion that the consequences of an action(that is, causing a potential sentient being to suffer) define the necessary moral equation of the action as being either bad or good.
I judge moral actions on a case by case basis. It could very well be true that bringing a new life into the world would cause it to suffer. However, there are other things to consider than simply that. For instance is it true that the life could also experience more joy than suffering? Is it true that the subject might find some salvation in the melancholy of suffering? Is it true that the parents of the child took this notion of suffering into account, yet decided to bring the life into being anyway, because of beliefs of being able to overcome such adversities?
If any of these are true, then the Asymmetry falls flat as an argument against having a child.
Now, don't get me wrong. I DO advocate that parents need to be more responsible in bringing forth babies and new lives into the world. Knowing that you cannot support a child and raise them efficiently is a good reason to not have that child, as there is some guarantee that the suffering this child will not be able to be overcome, plus there is no guarantee that the child would find some salvation in said suffering, while it is still a possibility.
To summarize: I agree with the premise that responsible notions should be taken into account when having children. And if this were the only premise of an antinatalist, you could even call me one.
However there is no sufficient argument that could be made to categorize all baby making as objectively irresponsible. Antinatalism, in my opinion, is a joke.
1
Do you spend your time finding wacky philosophies?
And on a more serious note, if every single person stopped having babies the human race would die out. Isn't that enough of a counter-argument?
And on a more serious note, if every single person stopped having babies the human race would die out. Isn't that enough of a counter-argument?
0
There's a simple counter-argument.
Suffering is not to be avoided. Through it, humanity grows and can appreciate the beauty and wonder of life.
There ya go, carry on having babies.
*edit* I couldn't leave it at that, as much as I wanted to. On a more serious note, there is a short story by an Argentinan author named Julio Cortazar, called "A Yellow Flower." In it the main character (a middle aged man) happens to meet his exact double (a child) from when he is younger on a bus. I think the idea is reincarnation, but instead of after he dies, his reincarnation accidentally appears while he is still alive. This is never explicitly made clear in the story, but I kind of just inferred it for clarity's sake.
Basically, he meets his double, in child form, and secretly follows him to his house. He becomes a part of his life (family friend?) and things happen. He knows the boy will have all the same disappointments and failures as him, so he keeps an eye on him. One day the kid mysteriously dies, but the man expresses no remorse. (Its never explicitly stated in the story, but its kind of subtly implied that he kills the child.)
He actually feels pretty good that the boy is dead, because he doesn't have to go through all the same suffering, disappointments and failures as the man has experienced. THe guy basically feels that its a good thing the boy is dead (that he did a good thing, if you believe the man killed the child).
As he's walking home, feeling pretty good/self-righteous, he sees a small yellow flower growing on the side of the pavement and becomes mesmerized. He marvels at its simple beauty, and is suddenly filled with a wave of anger and regret. He realized that despite all his disappointments and suffering, he still experienced beauty, and now his younger double has been deprived of that very experience.
Cool story, huh bro?
I would argue that the second premise of that philosophy
"It is not true that to bring forth a life into this world is to guarantee that it will experience joy and happiness, at some point, and in some way,"
is a false one.
Don't deprive babies from experiencing the beauty of existence.
Keep havin babies.
Suffering is not to be avoided. Through it, humanity grows and can appreciate the beauty and wonder of life.
There ya go, carry on having babies.
*edit* I couldn't leave it at that, as much as I wanted to. On a more serious note, there is a short story by an Argentinan author named Julio Cortazar, called "A Yellow Flower." In it the main character (a middle aged man) happens to meet his exact double (a child) from when he is younger on a bus. I think the idea is reincarnation, but instead of after he dies, his reincarnation accidentally appears while he is still alive. This is never explicitly made clear in the story, but I kind of just inferred it for clarity's sake.
Basically, he meets his double, in child form, and secretly follows him to his house. He becomes a part of his life (family friend?) and things happen. He knows the boy will have all the same disappointments and failures as him, so he keeps an eye on him. One day the kid mysteriously dies, but the man expresses no remorse. (Its never explicitly stated in the story, but its kind of subtly implied that he kills the child.)
He actually feels pretty good that the boy is dead, because he doesn't have to go through all the same suffering, disappointments and failures as the man has experienced. THe guy basically feels that its a good thing the boy is dead (that he did a good thing, if you believe the man killed the child).
As he's walking home, feeling pretty good/self-righteous, he sees a small yellow flower growing on the side of the pavement and becomes mesmerized. He marvels at its simple beauty, and is suddenly filled with a wave of anger and regret. He realized that despite all his disappointments and suffering, he still experienced beauty, and now his younger double has been deprived of that very experience.
Cool story, huh bro?
I would argue that the second premise of that philosophy
"It is not true that to bring forth a life into this world is to guarantee that it will experience joy and happiness, at some point, and in some way,"
is a false one.
Don't deprive babies from experiencing the beauty of existence.
Keep havin babies.
0
Black Jesus JC wrote...
Do you spend your time finding wacky philosophies?And on a more serious note, if every single person stopped having babies the human race would die out. Isn't that enough of a counter-argument?
Well they kind of WANT the human race to die out.
That's kind of the point.
The desired default state of existence is none. But they don't want to do it violently, so no killing ourselves or each other, because that specifically would go against the hedonism inherent in the philosophy.
0
I have came and thought of antinatalism in my own terms before and even supported the idea in my pessimistic days but though my own journey and have found suffering to be a very necessary part of life. Like a wise man once said, "only through suffering may you find nirvana", or something along that line.
Psychologically one must learn through suffering to find direction in one's own independence and preference. Evolution dictates survival of the fittest and when applied to suffering it becomes the suffering are weak and shouldn't(as suffering isn't a force enough alone stop one to pass one's genetics) pass their genetics to the next generation. Maybe even antinatalism could be a subconscious mechanism that indirectly influences evolution by withdrawing the pattern from the possible future gene pool that is giving the individual a experience of suffering and there whereby terminating the cycle of suffering.
Those are just my rambling thoughts, but whatever the case I find antinatalism to be erroneous and false idea.
Psychologically one must learn through suffering to find direction in one's own independence and preference. Evolution dictates survival of the fittest and when applied to suffering it becomes the suffering are weak and shouldn't(as suffering isn't a force enough alone stop one to pass one's genetics) pass their genetics to the next generation. Maybe even antinatalism could be a subconscious mechanism that indirectly influences evolution by withdrawing the pattern from the possible future gene pool that is giving the individual a experience of suffering and there whereby terminating the cycle of suffering.
Those are just my rambling thoughts, but whatever the case I find antinatalism to be erroneous and false idea.
0
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
But life has so much good to experience, to deny such is to deny life itself and basically makes the argument moot. Without life, there is no good or evil, to not bring a child into something that dooms them to heartship is admirable, but such things cannot be absolute.
If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you and your family are prone to a lifetime of decease and pain, don't have a kid. If you think the world is overpopulated and the kids on it are too numerous and already uncared for don't have a kid. If you hate kids, don't have a kid. If you are a mean cruel bastard, don't have a kid.
That is pretty much my view, that leaves plenty to have kids. Adoption is a solution to some of the above, but not all. Kid's should have a chance at a good life, with someone there to comfort them when in pain as well as keep them from some pain.
Its kinda a shame, people who are very intelligent and moral usually have few children, dooms us a race more than anything else.
But life has so much good to experience, to deny such is to deny life itself and basically makes the argument moot. Without life, there is no good or evil, to not bring a child into something that dooms them to heartship is admirable, but such things cannot be absolute.
If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you and your family are prone to a lifetime of decease and pain, don't have a kid. If you think the world is overpopulated and the kids on it are too numerous and already uncared for don't have a kid. If you hate kids, don't have a kid. If you are a mean cruel bastard, don't have a kid.
That is pretty much my view, that leaves plenty to have kids. Adoption is a solution to some of the above, but not all. Kid's should have a chance at a good life, with someone there to comfort them when in pain as well as keep them from some pain.
Its kinda a shame, people who are very intelligent and moral usually have few children, dooms us a race more than anything else.
0
BigLundi wrote...
The argument goes thusly: It is true that to bring a life into this world is to guarantee that it will suffer, at some point, in some way. It is not true that to bring forth a life into this world is to guarantee that it will experience joy and happiness, at some point, and in some way.
Hence, if one is to accept the position that suffering is to be avoided, it is immoral to bring forth a life into this world.
The problem is here.
In my opinion, life being suffering or joy is not a fixed value. It's a function of resource-to-population ratio. So even if it's true that giving birth to a life at this point, with the condition today, guarantees suffering, doesn't mean it's always true. The proper conclusion of life being a suffering today should be that we should have LESS population, instead of NO population, to make life joyful again.
Wikipedia defines antinatalism (I'm getting corrected by my spell check, why?) as a thought that "assign negative value to birth". By doing so, it should assign negative value to life as well. Then why is torturing a life considered bad? Furthermore, since we are life ourselves, if life is negative, why is it wrong to do what a negative existence considers negative? Or we can go another way around: if the reason of objecting birth is that it creates suffering, than you must consider life to be of positive value so that making a life suffer is negative, right? Than why are you objecting the birth of something of positive value? I have no choice but to conclude that this philosophy conflicts with itself.
Nevertheless, I do agree that we should give less birth. It's basic math: same resource divided by more population means less share for everyone.
0
BigLundi wrote...
Black Jesus JC wrote...
Do you spend your time finding wacky philosophies?And on a more serious note, if every single person stopped having babies the human race would die out. Isn't that enough of a counter-argument?
Well they kind of WANT the human race to die out.
That's kind of the point.
The desired default state of existence is none. But they don't want to do it violently, so no killing ourselves or each other, because that specifically would go against the hedonism inherent in the philosophy.
My bad, should have read the topic more. As for the point about guaranteed suffering, i think if you put the effort into raising a child they should have enough happiness and support to get through that.
0
I always enjoy Lundi's topics. Always so interesting. Anyway, I've never heard of this philosophy before. It's interesting, to think that to even prevent a child's birth to save it from suffering is interesting, yet somewhat psychotic at the same time.
I can't say anything without repeating what everyone else has been saying before me, about how suffering makes life worth living. Interesting thing this connects to though...
Could this very argument be used to be a anti-abortion argument? I mean, it's the same concept, preventing birth for whatever reason, weather for the child's or the parent's sake.
I can't say anything without repeating what everyone else has been saying before me, about how suffering makes life worth living. Interesting thing this connects to though...
Could this very argument be used to be a anti-abortion argument? I mean, it's the same concept, preventing birth for whatever reason, weather for the child's or the parent's sake.
0
This sounds pretty much like a sad person trying to justify his own twisted ideas and imposing them as a truth.
0
neofranky wrote...
This sounds pretty much like a sad person trying to justify his own twisted ideas and imposing them as a truth. Like every other person who has an extreme idea.
0
Most of (us) in the west would probably counter the idea by saying something like along the lines of what Black Jesus said, but there are of course people that are suffering, on a daily basis, to an extent some of us cannot even begin to imagine.
Other than that, I agree that Antinatalism is a joke. Sounds a bit too much like people playing god and judging based on their self-righteous views.
Other than that, I agree that Antinatalism is a joke. Sounds a bit too much like people playing god and judging based on their self-righteous views.
0
I'd just like to add that on Youtube I've had an extensive debate with antinatalists, starting with the script I typed up and posted here.
I'd like to post them up, if that's ok with the mods.
http://inmendham.com/cb/upload/watch_video.php?v=B6OARYN96W63
http://inmendham.com/cb/upload/watch_video.php?v=23NASR5Y991K
It's extensive.
I'd like to post them up, if that's ok with the mods.
http://inmendham.com/cb/upload/watch_video.php?v=B6OARYN96W63
http://inmendham.com/cb/upload/watch_video.php?v=23NASR5Y991K
It's extensive.