I’m not exceptionally well versed on “antinatalism“, the belief that it is morally wrong to procreate. Some antinatalists make the argument that procreation is morally wrong because it is nonconsensual as far as the offspring is concerned. Other antinatalists make the argument that because there is suffering in life (some times and places more than others), it is morally wrong to create a life that you know is going to suffer. I have no sympathy for the first argument, and some for the second. Consent presupposes existence, and unless the antinatalist is able to prove some sort of spiritual pre-existence, then making an argument concerning consent of the offspring is nonsensical. As for procreating into a life of suffering, this argument is much more powerful for me in times and places were suffering was guaranteed, eg. under slavery and under Communism. But then again, who are we to decide how others may feel throughout their life? That seems arrogant, does it not? You may just procreate someone who grows up to have a significant influence on ending said suffering, after all. Parents should not be the direct source of suffering for their children, in any event. And that’s today’s two cents.
Deliberate twisting of LOGIC by collectivists, designed to CONFUSE -“Divide and Conquer” ! Read “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” Not-with-standing that conception, itself, is considered by those who think thus, is evil, and by extension that Life is Evil, HOW can there be any concept of “CONSENSUAL” before a conscious being with that ability, is created, even by the uniting of the HUMAN Sperm and Egg??? That “thinking”( I use the word loosely) is the destructive result of teaching individuals that just because they can talk ( or write) , means that they necessarily KNOW what they are talking… Read more »
You are amoral at best if you place your own wants to have a child ahead of their interests in being born or not. In that line of thinking there is no morality at all – just doing what you want to do if you can get away with it.
first, they will have every opportunity to end their life if they so choose. turns out, most life wants to live. i believe the assumption that they want to live is safer than that they don’t. only then we can we introduce environmental considerations. second, before talking about “morality”, you should see read my six part series on what morality and ethics means to me: https://everything-voluntary.com/an-attempt-at-universal-ethic-part-i this series is forthcoming in book form, changing “universal ethic” to “universal ethical framework”.
In your blog post above you admit that one may have an interest in not being born into slavery, or some other kind of torment. If you concede that an unborn being may not have an interest in being born, then by breeding you are discounting that interest (of which any breeder is ignorant) in favor of your own interest – might makes right style. And inability to consent, to you, really means that no consent is necessary? By this logic it is morally permissible to rape infants and the severely disabled. I guess you would have recommended mass suicide… Read more »
I said I was sympathetic to situations where a child was probably going to suffer, but again, there’s no guarantee of it, or how long. Obviously, having a child is selfish. Everything a person does is selfish (self-interested). Even your responding to me is selfish. Should I tell you that you’re being selfish and that I won’t humor your selfishness by responding? No… because I have my own selfish reasons to respond. And I’ve never conceded that an unborn being may not have an interest in being born… in fact, I said to assume either way about another person is… Read more »
If you think that there is no difference in being born into torment and bliss, there’s no basis for continuing. We don’t share any premises. Your ethics are, as stated, just selfishness without empathy or conscience.
Of course there’s a difference. But I won’t assume someone else’s feelings about their situation. All we can do is project our own. I’ve written before that if someone has not fixed their own childhood trauma, they should not have kids, else they continue the cycle of abuse. There are many cases, such as this, where I could be labeled an “antinatalist”, just not in every case.
“first, they will have every opportunity to end their life if they so choose.” – There’s where you got yourself into a corner completely. Voluntaryism means literally that: only relationships that start through consent of all involved are legitimate. In the case of procreation, existence of the child AND relationship between the parrent and the child start at the exact time. So it is necessarily initiation of an involuntary relationsihip. It doesn’t matter that you require existence of the individual before considering his consent. What you need to get out of this hole is to change the definition of voluntaryism… Read more »
I believe you are equivocating on the concept of consent. There are obviously levels and types of consent. Can a 4 year consent to receive a carrot I’m offering them? Obviously. Can a 12 year old consent to touch private parts with a 13 year old? Obviously. Can a 4 year old consent to me killing them? Obviously not. Can a 12 year old consent to touch private parts with a 23 year old? Obviously not. It’s not black or white, and I’m sure you can see that, so your black or white definition totally fails. Starting a relationship with… Read more »
My definition of consent: Individual considers alternate scenarios: initiating a relationship vs not initiating that relationshp. Choice for affirmative is called consent. So consent presupposes the ability to consider the alternatives and chose between them. If you can see where i don’t conform to that definition, let me know. If you know a vastly supperior definition, let me know. But from what i read in your “On Antinatalism III”, i see that we will get absolutely nowhere if you don’t retract this idea that a cell tries really hard to do something specific. Have you ever heard of Praxeology of… Read more »
“Initiating relationship” I don’t know why you are basing your definition on this. Initiating a relationship is not an act of aggression, is not encroachment, is not a trespass, is not assault, or battery, or rape, or theft. Every time I tap a stranger on the shoulder to ask them or inform them of something I am doing so without first asking for consent. In fact, asking for consent would be “initiating relationship”, so you can’t do it before you have consent. HUH?! This premise is nonsensical, relationships can be initiated without consent, in fact, that’s how all relationships are… Read more »
You have conveniently overlooked the fact that every being brought into existence never had a chance to give consent. Even though it is nonsensical to talk about consent from a non-existent being, it is fact that no body consented to be brought into existence. This of course is different from a consent after one has come into existence since the strong evolutionary existence bias plays a big role in the decision let alone the other psychological biases like optimism bias etc. Secondly, your second argument is wrong. How one “feels” about suffering is never a basis for antinatalism. The fact… Read more »
“never had a chance”… no kidding. except, sperm tries really hard to enter the egg, and then begins division instead of killing itself. That looks as much like consent as we can get from these forms.
on suffering, the obvious counter is that suicide is extremely rare. by and large, and despite the suffering, life wants to remain living (and as just explained, really wants to begin in the first place).