What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever?
What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever?
This is about absolute antinatalists, the kind who believe that producing any child is immoral.
It's not about selective antinatalists, the kind who believe that only some people should not have children.
This is about absolute antinatalists, the kind who believe that producing any child is immoral.
It's not about selective antinatalists, the kind who believe that only some people should not have children.
Comments (94)
I guess sustenance. Absolute antinatalist is quite impossible because there will be always Kids (even more in so religious countries) but I would consider give a chance ti selective antinatalism as you explained previously.
I guess people who are irresponsible with their own lives shouldn't have the right of breed not only Kids but animals. Having kid is a serious issue that not all the people are ready or capable to do it so.
Imagine someone who in their regular days has a lot of problems which make them not living properly: Bankruptcy, drug addiction, violence, etc... And then they want have kids? Hmm... I still think it is not the best option in context like this
Bad, very bad.
I agree that some people are not fit to be parents, but nonetheless strongly object to state machinery that imposes its will on women's bodies. How can you possibly justify the idea that the state has a right to decide who can and cannot breed? It's a primary biological function, and inherent to a person's very human-ness that they have the capacity to reproduce. The state has no right to that. It's bad enough with anti-abortion laws. How would you deal with unsanctioned pregnancy? Would women become criminally liable for the natural functioning of their bodies? Would you be happy ordering terminations of unapproved pregnancies by court order?
Could be a couple things depending on the AN:
Catharsis- I can't prevent my life, but I can prevent future suffering. The emotional element of satisfaction that one is following an ethical guideline such as preventing a future sufferer from having to experience suffering. Sharing one's vision of what is the case and the simple, yet novel approach to the solution.
Duty- If it is truly ethical to not create future sufferers, some might find it part of their duty to let people know what is the ethical case.
Oh no. I do not want a holocaust of pregnant women. Neither I want laws which order to courts punish all them who despite they are irresponsible they have kids. It is an Utopia. We can't avoid biology and the instinct of having kids from women. Nevertheless, I guess it is at least so critically flawed. We cannot sit here and then spreading kids out of nowhere for no reason. I think it doesn't depend on laws but in sexual education. What do you think? Probably with a proper sexual education people would be more matured at the time of thinking about having kids.
Before you posted this, you should read just about any AN argument, as this is probably the most common question ANs get asked, and also the most commonly rebutted.
Most ANs recognize the distinction of what it means to prevent someone from coming into existence in the first place and ending an existence that is already here. As long as one recognizes this distinction, then this argument doesn't make sense. Clearly, an axiom concerned with things like "Harm" and "Consent" and "Forcing" would not do the very things to someone that they feel procreating itself is doing. Most ANs aren't complete negative utilitarians where the outcome is all that matters. Not all ethics is barbarically one-sided like that.
I guess it is not about killing humans who already born but preventing the future of some parents (not all true) of having kids if they have lack of responsibility
Hi Javi, to be fair, he is talking about "absolute antinatalism".. that is antintalism that thinks NO parents should ever have children because they want to prevent a future person from suffering. It doesn't matter the background of the parent, or the circumstances. All birth should be prevented if possible.
I already gave my answer as to the difference between beginning a life, and continuing a life that is already here and how ANs would not use the very things they are against (not forcing a situation onto someone, not getting consent, not harming) to prevent current suffering. The nonexistence of an actual person prior to birth makes all the difference here.
Hello! Yes I understand your point now. It is interesting this point because somehow remembers me an utopianism because it is impossible here preventing now having kids in the long run (we have some countries that literally promote this actions due to religious beliefs...) I accept the fact that not accepting all births is quite totalitarian and impossitive.
Also the fact of non-existence person before birth. it is similar to random probabilities. We only can argue here that probably only win those who will never experience in their consciousness that they ever existed/born.
A distinction that is close to trivial. If life isn't worth living, it's not worth living, full stop, with nukes.
I don't think antinatalism is about "getting something".
One can come to moral conclusions that one does not like, but still recognize them as being true.
No not at all. There is a distinction between a life worth STARTING and CONTINUTING. Different considerations, mainly involving the fact that in one case, no one exists with fears, goals, interests, and dignity. The other one does.
I am going to recommend to you, if you don't mind, a book which is about this topic and the story is pure brilliant. The book is called The Sailor Who Fell From Grace with the Sea by Yukio Mishima.
Cool, why do you recommend it in this case?
The story has a lot of symbolism about Japan in the 60's (if I remember it properly) but the most interesting fact is a group of friends who appear in the book and have a deeply conversation about anti-natalism in Japan. I remember even a quote when a friend of Naboru Kuroda (main character) told to him: having children in nowadays is something we cannot allow. This is why this debate remembered me about Mishima book.
Oh interesting. That does sound relevant.
There must be some painful dissonance involved in explicitly waging war against potential suffering in some abstract future while doing nothing to alleviate flesh-and-blood suffering in the concrete present. The amount of suffering he has prevented remains zero, but he no longer has to feel worse for doing nothing.
Strawman bro. You can still alleviate suffering for already existing person. One doesnt exclude the other. But its also a broader philosophical claim about existence itself. Its not always about the practical aims, but the aesthetic understanding. Its like art or music..theres aesthetic elements involved in having a worldview. Its not about simple utilitarian outcomes.
For example clearly you think the human project is worth perpetuating. Thats an aesthetic, a worldview, whether ya know it or not. All human decisions have justifications..even.if subtle or assumed.
Also, for the thousandth time, there IS a distinction between an ethic surrounding non-existence an people being put into existence, and people who already exist. It is a different emphasis. Preventing future people means not putting people here IN THE FIRST PLACE. Many ethics already deal with current suffering. What makes AN distinct is its prevention aspect. You are overlooking the actual argument by somehow saying the prevention aspect is illegitimate, but you haven't made an argument against it. Why shouldn't people prevent suffering, just because people already suffer? In fact, this in the long run will prevent the current suffering from continuing. The very suffering you are concerned with.
How can one alleviate the suffering of a child while at the same time wishing it was never born?
Prevent a future child. This prevents what is occurring now, occurring to someone else in the future. It just takes looking a little bit into the future.. next generation. By ignoring this, you are perpetuating the current suffering.
And don't start making the move to utopianism.. especially funny if you do being you seem to be an arch-conservative.. anyways go on.
I’m not a conservative. But I do know the difference between the abstract “future child” and the real one. I also know the difference between preventing life and preventing suffering.
Then I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of your suggestion that:
Quoting javi2541997
Quoting javi2541997
If it's a utopia, why is it full of irresponsible people having kids?
Quoting javi2541997
There is not a problem with over-population. The earth can support many more people than we currently have. The problem is the misapplication of technology - most fundamentally, energy technology. What we need, to secure the future - is massive amounts of clean energy from magma. Then we meet our energy needs without polluting, capture and sequester carbon, desalinate water to irrigate land for agriculture - while protecting forests and natural water sources from over-exploitation. With that kind of energy at our disposal, we can continue to grow into the future, sustainably. It would be a better world - with better development of resources, and less poverty.
With regard to reproduction, I would simply give women control over their own bodies, with education, contraception and medical care - and if people were still incapable of raising their children properly, then the state should step in and remove the children from danger. But preventing "irresponsible" people from breeding is a non-starter. It's eugenics. It's morally abhorrent, totalitarian and wide open to abuse.
It is not the same when someone is already pregnant than other does not. We are speaking here about preventing it not sacrifice all of those who are already pregnant.
Quoting counterpunch
It is an utopia because despite of irresponsible of some parents they will end up having kids. It is like a natural decision. We don't have and not improve the scenario where the people should consider more about having kids because it isn't a simple issue. That's why is an utopia. I trying to put arguments in something that won't work at all.
Quoting counterpunch
I am agree with you in this point. I also said it previously. I think the key is all about a good sex education system. This would prevent not only unnecessary borns but sexual illnesses.
What I want to say, despite it could sound quite totalitarian, is that some parents do not deserve have kids because these will have a bad life. If someone has already a dangerous background or life all this stimulus will affect their kids too. This is the reality.
Imagine a child born in a broken family with a lot of violence, drugs, bankruptcy, etc... Around him all the days. These stimulus will only make him a delinquent or probably a killer because their parents are not responsible enough to make the child a normal person because the life of the parents are not even normal.
Also you can say here that this literally could happens in rich or wealthy families too. Sure yes, but the ratio is lower we have to be honest.
Quoting javi2541997
True, but trying to prevent humans breeding is a very bad idea.
Freedom is the answer - not oppression.
Sure freedom is the answer but with some limits too.
Early Buddhism, which in effect also promotes AN, has a context to its AN and an alternative to "life as it is usually lived".
Your AN has no such thing. The context and the motivation for your AN amount to "I'll have a measure of contentment if noone else ever gets born".
You've capitulated before the problem of suffering. And even seem to think that such a capitulation deserves respect.
The existence of suffering is, for some people, proof that there is something fatally wrong with the universe.
But I don't get what you are trying to imply with motivations of antinatalists. Are you trying to say why are antinatalists trying to "deprive" parents of having children?
I think if that's the case, you must rethink where where the focus should be on. It shouldn't be: "I WANT a child for X reasons, and I am suffering because I cannot satisfy this desire".
Rather, the focus should be on how the parent is bringing the conditions for ANOTHER person to suffer from their actions. Why should just wanting something be a reason for someone else to pay consequences?
Again, I gave the example of WORK. Just because you might not mind laboring to keep yourself alive, doesn't mean that the person you are going to bear into existence will want this situation. It is de facto "forced" on this new person- the alternatives to laboring being sub-optimal options such as homelessness (and slow death) or rapid death through suicide.
But look at the converse. If you DON'T have a child, no ONE is deprived of the (pleasure?) of production/work, because no ONE exists to be deprived. This asymmetry can be applied to any negative outcome for the child (experiencing disease, discomfort, physical/emotional anguish, etc.).
There are plenty of things that one can do that isn't so profoundly affecting someone else. Again, someone else should not pay for another person's sense of satisfaction. And it is this focus on doing harm to another person based on one's actions, that the antinatalist is focusing on.
There are other examples where one is doing harm to others by satisfying one's own wants.. In these circumstances we also seem to look down on this. But somehow this very important and much more permanent and profound example of procreation, gets a pass.
It's simple and crystaline, yet unacceptable to our human nature. Hence, the tension in this thread.
What makes it paricularly part of human nature and not a pervasive culturally pressured preference that can somewhat easily be overrided? Agree with you otherwise.
I'd agree there is likely also a cultural dimension to this.
Whether these things can easily be overrided depends heavily on the individual and their propensity for reason.
Besides attraction (which is its own difficulties to explain in terms of instinct) and the desire for pleasure, can you describe what the "I want a baby" deep-rooted instinct looks like and explain how its an instinct?
What's so hard to understand?
What do _you_, as an antinatalist, get if other people don't have children?
There must be something in it for you, or you wouldn't argue for it. Instead, you beat around the bush like a demivierge.
Quoting schopenhauer1
They they they. Duh. Stop talking about others, and instead come forward clearly stating what's in it for you if other people don't have children.
If I advocate that people shouldn't murder, it shouldn't matter what's in it for me. It's the moral thing to do. ALSO, I gave you some ideas in my first reply so now you're beating a dead horse.
You can ask the same thing to literally anyone philosophizing..
Why does @Banno advocate for Wittgenstein's ideas?
Why does Plato advocate the forms? He should keep it to himself right?
Why does Russell care about the logic behind math and publish works about it for everyone to see and review? It just works, right?
I mean this literally can be applied to anything a human does that other people might be an audience of.
When people see a truth of some kind (at least as they see it), they tend to want others to also understand it, grapple with it, have a dialectic about it, and so on and not just have a conversation with themselves only.
And why is that? What do they get from it?
What do you get from asking me this question?
Have you ever tried to provide a thesis or proposition before? Why did you do that?
Why do you think people write on this forum in general?
Why do philosophers publish their thoughts and have a dialogue?
A special kind of satisfaction.
Yes. In order to test drive it, to see what objections to it others would raise, and as such, where the flaws and vulnerabilities of said proposition were (and what I must fix).
I think a lot of it is for philotainment. Some people go drinking with their buddies to bars, some go mountainhiking, some bake cookies, and some discuss philosophy on internetz forums.
Some do it because it's their only marketable skill.
Some have been doing it for a long time and they just don't know how to live otherwise.
Some do it for fun.
Some do it in an effort to achieve world domination.
And probably more.
See you can answer your own question.
I see the unfairness of bringing suffering into the world and I am impelled to give my perspective due to this.
There are preconditions of the world that every person MUST contend with (I call this de facto forced conditions). For example, one can choose not to work, but then they are going to either free ride off someone else, hack it and probably die by themselves in the wilderness, go homeless, or any other number of sub-optimal outcomes. They can also commit suicide if they really don't like it. I don't like putting people into these de facto forced conditions so I will speak up about it.
And how has that been working out for you?
How sure are you that people are non-existent before they're born? Does your whole position rest on that?
Not sure your point...
Not sure where you're going with this.. The point in the comment you quoted was that starting an existence is unnecessary suffering started on someone else's behalf. Once someone is born, there is someone who has interests, etc.
If there was a soul beforehand, we wouldn't know it so doesn't make a difference. From the information we know, suffering is started unnecessarily.
It's a good question. I guess they might get some peace of some kind. Also validation that such arguments can work once in a while.
But if empathy was the main goal here, maybe helping others, in whatever way possible, would probably be better.
Seems like you jumped to the conclusion that Javi was talking about eugenics. How did you conclude that? Does "selective antinatalism" = eugenics?
Quoting javi2541997
I think a good case can be made that some people should not have children, and this is a matter that affects both men and women. People whose lives are self-destructive (such as having multiple addictions) will be unable to deliver, care for, and support a healthy child.
The species as a whole (soon to be 8 billion) is too numerous, and couples (4 billion couples, about) should strive for no more than 2.1 children -- at most, preferably fewer. 2.1 is the maximum rate for declining populations.
It is moral to ask that people whose lives render them unable to care for their children to not have them. It is moral to prevent pregnancy for women who are unable to make reproductive decisions owing to severe mental disability. The morality of preventing conception for women whose lives are very disordered, but are capable of making reproductive decisions is much more difficult.
Forced treatment for addiction and mental illness anguishes civil libertarians; requiring consent for any treatment may be an over reaction.
Back to the species as a whole: If we do not find some way for controlling fertility on a global scale, then nature will find a solution for us, and we won't like it.
I guess so, but besides you telling me, how would anyone know that?
We work with what is known. We can imply anything.. QM theory says... (place any possibility because infinite multiverse).
:100:
As is said nowadays in Discord, Facts.
It is not known that we only have this one lifetime. You're making an assumption.
Based on what is known.. We can't know what we don't know..
They get bragging rights to a non-existent audience.
What evidence do you have that we only have one lifetime? How is that a known thing?
A lot of hard work they are probably not prepared or willing to do.
It's a simple question. How has expressing your particular antinatalist stance worked out for you?
Are you happier now? Do people respect you more? ...
Indeed.
This is one of the reasons why I think that the strongest position that the antinatalists can take is something like this:
"I do not want to cause any suffering to others." (Formulated in 1st person singular.)
Ie. focusing on the intention, on the desire not to cause suffering. This way, one also skirts all the issues of when exactly does a person come into existence, potential rebirth/reincarnation scenarios, calculations of how much suffering a potential new person is likely to experience etc.
Which leads to moral absurdities like not wanting to trip up a gunman who's about to massacre a thousand innocent people. So that should be discarded without a second thought. By the time they face their first moral dilemma they'll already be faced with weighing smaller harms against greater ones.
The problem is that a moral is about how we treat others and we consider them to apply to others, so the enacting of any moral, by definition, causes suffering. It either restrains someone from something they otherwise wanted to do, or it pushes someone to do something they otherwise would rather have not done. If it does neither, then it's not a moral, it's just 'whatever we wanted to do anyway'. Both of those consequences are a form of suffering (not being able to do something you want, having to do something you don't want). In fact they're basically the archetypes of suffering. So morality based solely on avoidance of suffering without any aggregation or weighing is simply not morality from the outset.
Yes. Enacting a moral course of action, in order for it to not count simply as 'whatever we wanted to do anyway' inevitably involves suffering either the burden of doing other than one would otherwise prefer or that of refraining from doing that which one would otherwise prefer.
So you exclude the possibility that the two can overlap?
If you do, on what grounds?
I don't exclude the possibility that the two might sometimes overlap, but if they necessarily overlap, then morally 'right' (as opposed to morally 'wrong') becomes a meaningless judgement of an action. "Is this right?", would be exactly the same question as "would I like to do this?"
I remember reading a story once about this person, a girl I'm not sure, who's planning a party. She makes a list of her friends and other people she wants to invite. It so happens that she knows someone, someone who she wants to invite, but soon realizes that that just won't work out - this person, for better or worse, doesn't get along with the other people already on the invite list. There's simply no way that this person will have fun at the party - outnumbered and disliked at the same time. She decides not to invite this person for the better.
But how does this address the antinatalist scenario, given that you posted the story in reply to the OP question?
Well, anitnatalists mean well - they don't want to see people suffer. The girl in the story means well too - she doesn't want the persona non grata to suffer. Like it or not, that so many great minds, with a few exceptions of course, have been preoccupied by suffering says a lot about the way the world really is. Such exceptionally talented thinkers would've been better employed and would've gotten better results doing something else e.g. trying to formuate a theory of everything. I have nothing more to say.
What do you mean -- what does it say about the world that so many great minds have been preoccupied with suffering?
Well, for comparison, in Buddhism, they say that there is suffering, that it has a cause, and that there is a way to undo that cause; they also say that suffering is something to understand.
antinatalism is simply destructive and as such not good.
Same way auto destruction is harm against myself, antinatalism is harm against humanity.
Both are bad.
Surely you wish that some people would not procreate?
Some people maybe but not all.
Selective antinatalism such as "a better gene pool" is likely a subject to morality.
On another side birth control regulated by law (ex. for common good) is probably morally acceptable.
I'm personally against any type of antinatalism, but if I had to choose it would have to be morally acceptable.
I am not sure this is a definition of morality other than your definition. However, even if we are to judge it by those standards, certainly many people who would have wanted to procreate but didn't to prevent the potential person from suffering fits even this definition. In other situations the idea of preventing unnecessary suffering while also not violating someone's dignity can apply in a multitude of ways.. Wake a lifeguard (small violation) but don't force the lifeguard into a lifetime of lifeguarding school EVEN if you KNOW the best OUTCOME is this person being forced into teaching lifeguarding lessons for the rest of their life. There is something about caring TOO MUCH about greatest good that is nefarious in itself when balanced against individual dignity. An extreme example of this is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox.
Yes and Schopenhauer also emphasized and agreed with the suffering that Buddhism discusses. However, Schopenhauer definitely identified more with the Buddhist monk ideals and not simply Buddhist-light (laymen). That is to say, true salvation comes from denying the will completely.
Of course with antinatalism, it's just helping along other who don't have to be saved in the first place. Yes, this counters Buddhism's need to defend procreation so that people can be born to be saved by enlightenment. It presupposes a metaphysics of reincarnation which most antinatalists don't believe.
What definition of morality are you working from?
Quoting schopenhauer1
We've already agreed to this. I was just correcting the simplistic analysis presented. A morality cannot simply be about preventing harm, because a moral action sometimes involves harm, it would be a direct contradiction. Of course you could have a moral maxim about minimising harm, one where you consider the net harm (the harm of refraining from procreation is smaller than the harm from doing so). But then you have to accept that we're now measuring harms. Which raises questions about whose measurement criteria we use.
Odd that you should cite the mere addition paradox when you use it in reverse. One fewer averagely suffering person does not make the world a better place by exactly the same logic as one more averagely happy person does not make the world a better place. It's not about total quantity of happiness or suffering, it's about our relationships with others. We should be appalled to see people suffer beyond our expected amount and want to do everything we can to help (including suffering more minor harms ourselves, and expecting others to do so too).
Agreed, however to bring more people into the world in order to do this seems like a vicious circle. We bring people into the world who will suffer, but they are here to help people alleviate suffering.
I have an answer... Don't bring more people into the suffering to have their suffering alleviated in the first place.
So certainly the amelioration process is more of a bandaid and not the reason people should be born, lest the vicious circle. So rather, you may have some other content as the goal.. Technology, world utopia, etc. Transhumanism for example is thinking we should be working towards some overcoming of suffering. I don't necessarily agree, but it is trying to give a reason to being born. When I hear things like "flourishing" or "character-building" as the reason to have more people, it also seems like a vicious circle and still overlooking the person for an agenda, thus violating the dignity principle. Character-building is just "good" is close to saying: "Any current necessary task needed for survival like hard-work is what is needed".. So it is overlooking dignity and it is making a fallacy that what is needed to survive is why we need to be born in the first place. In the future if robots did all the work, then what? So this is obviously just relative to a certain cultural lifestyle that someone (perhaps yourself) wants to see out of other people because that is the current way of things or the value of things for a long while historically.
Let's say I am Willy Wonka..
I have created this world and will force others to enter it... My only rule is people have the options of either working at various occupations which I have lovingly created many varieties of, free-riding (which can only be done by a few and has to be done selectively lest one get caught, it is also considered no good in this world), or living day-to-day homelessly. The last option is a suicide pill if people don't like the arrangement. Is Willy Wonka moral? I mean he is giving many options for work, and even allowing you to test your luck at homelessness and free riding. Also, hey if you don't want to be in his arrangement, you can always kill yourself! See how beneficial and good I am to all my contestants?
There are lots of ways to feel strife and anxiety in my world.. There is generalized boredom, there are pressures from coworkers, there is pressure of joblessness, there are pressures of disease, disasters, mental illness, annoyances, malicious acts, accidents, and so much more that I have built into the world..
I have also created many people who will encourage everyone to also find my world loving so as to not have too many dropouts.
In other words, your own justification for not having children is your own thing. But if you care so much about the suffering of prospective as yet nonexisting humans, it would be wiser to start a political movement, or obtain some position of power in the government where you can actually influence people and make policy changes.
Yet procreation is not a private act. Quite the opposite, a whole other life is in play.
Quoting baker
This is the difference between ethics and politics. A majority of people nor a strongman has decided this is how things should be. And that is okay. Veganism should also not be forced but surely persuasion is fine.
Don't get the point?
I had something in here but not worth the time.