• I like sushi
    4.3k
    There is nothing that warrants anything in this world. Being born is not something we ask for nor something we can reject due to not existing before the point of our own nascent being.

    Some argue that life is full of suffering and therefore humans are not exactly enjoying life having to constantly strive to survive from moment to moment or jumping from goal to goal endlessly until oblivion overtakes them.

    Such arguments for antinatalism fall short for too many simplistic reasons to list here. But then how can an argument for antinatalism be made?

    Antinatalism is the view that procreation is a negative thing overall and therefore wrong. The first point falls down very, very quickly and is more or less the conclusion rather than the spring board to launch an appeal for antinatalism (this is the commonest flaw espoused by antinatalists). The issue of the ‘morality’ of procreating is where we need to begin to set up a reasonable position.

    There is good evidence that helps us to see for many generations procreation was often a matter of insurance. The elderly would rely on their children and children’s children to provide for them when age set in. Even the younger adults would require children to help them tend to daily tasks and even acquire money. The obvious morality of this is a test to hold up to modern life. In the modern world such practices and traditions have faded and people have began to reduce the number of offspring they would produce, due to better healthcare amongst other things, and so the question remains ‘what use are children?’ That is what use are they to wealthy individuals as previously having children was all about a form of continuing the family tradition or, more likely, producing a workforce to help the family survive.

    The simplest and most common drives of all animals revolve around two basic principles (1) to sustain themselves and (2) to reproduce. These are quite different drives because the first is an absolute requirement to keep living whilst the second is not essential, to the individual, to keep living. Herein lies the crux of the antinatalist argument. Procreation is not necessary for the individual but sustenance certainly is. There is no modern world reason to produce offspring for the means of sustaining an individual as there was in the past. What is more this is a relatively recent occurrence and so we are faced with the question of what reason we have for procreating now and whether or not it is a good thing to do (generally speaking and morally speaking).

    Generally speaking having a child neither gives nor takes, but does both. They are a burden for parents yet they also offer up an avenue of self-exploration. Let us assume that the net effect is beneficial for most individuals. Does such a ‘net benefit’ tie into moral ideas? Just because, say, 60% of people benefit there are still 40% who do not. This is not even taking into account the actual good for the children born. If one child in a hundred is born and suffers is that okay if the rest do not? This is also a common argument from the antinatalist and it is at fault too. The issue is not about measuring and weighing lives against lives nor imagined rights against imagined wrongs. This can be seen by reversing the hypothetical to one child in a hundred not suffering whilst all the others do. Is one reality more moral than another? You might jump up and shout ‘of course!’ … but wait! Do not jump too quickly. If one reality is one reality (which reality is) then comparisons between ‘different realities’ is just a mirage. Here we begin to unearth the antinatalist view. The view is quite simple and yet quite hard to grasp and feel comfortable about. Our moral judgement is based on the only reality we know superimposed over some other imagined reality. Yet, we rely from day-to-day on a myriad of probable future realities and instil in ourselves, subtly or in a more pronounced fashion, a cleaving to hypothetical tracks. Our ‘morality’ is not fashioned from the reality we live in but rather fashioned from ideas of other possible realities we can never live in. Our morality is essentially a fantasy world.

    Is having children a question of ‘morals,’ ‘ethics’ or something else?

    It is easy enough to understand that a personal ‘moral’ is tied into a social ‘ethic’. We are social creatures and so necessarily adhere to some societal norms. To establish an argument from the perspective of antinatalism I see no way that meta ethics can be simply ignored. The very meaning of what ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ are needs to be addressed. These are two particularly terms that are often confused by using them interchangeably. In the area of ‘ethics’ a general overview is cast and something akin to a ‘ruleset’ is used to guide social interactions. In terms of what is or is not ‘ethical’ we need a baseline guide to offer up some rough system of values. Taking the previously mentioned hypotheticals of one child in a hundred suffering or one child in one hundred NOT suffering I think we can appeal strongly to the later being ‘better’. This is because we actually ‘value’ life and generally state that ‘living’ is not exactly the worst thing ever merely the only thing.

    Why value life? This question is as relevant as asking ‘why value values?’ The question effectively pretends to ignore the the answer the very question lays bare. That is that what is ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ is not known beyond living. To question anything is to bring ‘value’ into the picture. To question anything is to be. The antinatalist position cannot question the value of life, but it most certainly can question the means by which life can be valued, should be valued and has been valued. It from this point on that the antinatalist view actually reveals itself as antinatalism of two distinct forms (1) Antinatalism as viewing having children as ‘morally wrong’ or (2) Antinatalism as viewing having children as ‘unethical’. A rational antinatalist simply cannot hold both positions. This is also how arguments against a certain antinatalist view fall short too.

    So antinatalism has an argument from two differing perspectives. That of the questioning against societal norms regarding having children and questioning against personal morals regarding having children. Embedded in this problem is the definition of ‘ethics’ versus ‘morality’. They are clearly linked and it is here that an antinatalist position can seem nonsensical when it flips across the links of this chain on the whim and direction of the argument at hand. In short an antinatalist argument has to remain as an argument against ‘ethics’ or an argument against ‘morality’. The quest is then one of meta ethics and setting out what is meant by each term and how they differ in the scope of the antinatalist view.

    The Ethical position is that what the individual deems as moral is not necessarily Ethical. The broader implication for society being that having children is detrimental somehow. Just because we agree with societal ‘norms’ does not necessarily mean we believe in them blindly. It is fair to see that one can hold a well thought out individualistic view regarding this topic that aligns with the Ethics of the group.

    The Moral position is that what society deems as the ‘norm’ is not necessarily beneficial for an individual’s moral perspective. Just because one may believe that having children is not immoral this view may just be a repercussion of societal ethics overpowering the individual viewpoint - one can believe in something simply by never bringing it into question.

    You may be asking how this is in any way an argument for antinatalism? The point here is that antinatalism is a strong signal marking the obscurity of moral and ethical thought. It points us directly to the meta ethics of how we regard morals and ethics. It is also a topic that focuses on something we call ‘suffering’. To return to the hypotheticals regarding one in a hundred suffering or not suffering … when it comes to Morality it is a reasonably strong idea to view the suffering of one as meaningful as the suffering of many. On the flip side, when it comes to what is Ethical the societal picture has a stronger presence in the frame, and thus it is reasonable to decide that the number of people suffering is significant - as ‘life’ is the primary medium of value being the very vessel of ‘value’. For arguments against antinatalism the idea of ‘lesser’ degrees of suffering (less people leading a life of pain and hell) makes little to no sense when faced up against Morality because one person’s hell is still an existing kind of hell. If we were to argue that one person having the burden of high level suffering is better than several with lower levels of suffering we simply have no rational reason to stand by such an argument. Whilst, when put forward against the Ethical something else happens …

    The shift often made in the Ethical light of antinatalism is one where the article of obscurity shifts from the moral/ethic dynamic to the dynamic of ‘suffering’ and measurements there of. Again, one cannot rationally argue against ‘suffering’ without the meaning of ‘suffering’ being brought under close scrutiny.

    So, in summation … the Morality of Antinatalism is a position that shifts us more towards the meta ethics of what it is we mean by ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ and has less concern for measurements of ‘suffering’. The Ethics of Antinatalism is a position that is expounded by the Morality of Antinatalism yet lives beyond it firmly held by the scope of what ‘suffering’ is rather than whitewashing ‘suffering’ as an all or nothing notion (a common theme in Moralistic thought).

    So why should we not have children? I can hear you asking again and again …

    A) To have children is a guarantee of said ‘suffering’ coming into the world in some form or another. From a Moral perspective if one wishes to end suffering then this is an even better solution … to not BEGIN any suffering in the first place.

    B) From an Ethical perspective the chances of ‘suffering’ increasing (the number of people suffering not merely the proportion) will increase too. Stemming population growth can drastically reduce numbers even if the proportional suffering is higher.

    C) There is no ‘choice’ when it comes to our coming to exist. Suffering is not really an option in life either, it is a guarantee in fact. Our very orientation in this existential conscious state is performed through the Art of Suffering.

    D) The Art of Suffering is to absorb ‘suffering’ with ‘non-suffering’. We must suffer knowing that somewhere someone is not ‘suffering’ yet know that they have or will soon enough.


    Conclusions

    My argument for Antinatalism is actually for the thought experiment of Antinatalism as a means of exploring more readily the main problems in meta ethics and in the entire field of “Ethics” at large. I hope I have presented Antinatalism as a rather unique avenue into the underlying meta ethical problem of distinguishing the type of arguments presented in Ethics and how they can be viewed, misconstrued and misunderstood.

    I will leave with a thought … if the aim was for everyone to take on an Antinatalist attitude eventually leading to the end of the human race then can we take on such a task if we believed it to cause untold suffering for several generations to come?

    Here the Ethical Antinatalist may happily exclaim that it is all good that suffering be heaped upon suffering in order to end suffering completely, yet the Moral Antinatalist would shudder at such an idea. Mark the difference when an argument for Antinatalism is being put forward and pay close attention.

    In evolutionary terms and social development, the basic ‘need’ for children has fallen off as wealth and health have taken centre stage. In the past a family would simply follow the age old pattern of creating offspring to care for them and build upon the future. As time has wore on this ‘need’ has been uncovered as something selfish and/or a repercussion of basic biological functioning. Today though we are, overall, far less tied to our biological functions having created means to manage them and having the wealth and health to bring less children into the world that are generally healthier and more and more dependent rather than being vehicles for their parents longevity. This is the Ethical position for Antinatalism.

    The Moralistic Antinatalism has zero concern for biological functions or for evolutionary mechanisms. ‘Suffering’ is its anchor and for this reason it is unhelpful to dislodge the anchor because there is nothing left to argue about. The Moral position does not question that ‘suffering’ is bad nor does it question the degrees of ‘suffering’. Suffering for the Moralistic Antinatalist is the enemy regarded with equal ire in all its forms.

    The Antinatalist Trolly

    We all know the trolley problem. So let us take the hypothetical to the Moral and the Ethcial Antinatalist where ‘suffering’ is the primary concern.

    M) Do nothing, do something. It does not matter as ‘suffering’ is ever present.

    E) One person dying is one less suffering and their friends and family suffering. Five people dying is five less suffering and their friends and families suffering. It does not matter if one or five die if others will mourn their loss and continue the cycle of suffering.

    Freedom is a hell the fools beg for. The shackles of life ARE Life because they are our grounding. The point from which we can touch the universe. ‘Freedom from’ is annihilation. I guess we must all dabble in the art of annihilation though, life is what it is, and it IS.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I'm particularly intrigued by your decision to link antinatalism to the utilitarian trolley problem. Life is defined by the choices we make: in most cases they're n-lemmas (equally unpalatable options) and at other times, they're either-or ones (one or the other but not both). Lose-lose situations characterize every single choice node and that, as we all know, is the calling card of evil geniuses. If life were a game, its inventor/creator is a sadist who delights in seeing us writhe in agony as we select not the best but the least worst. :snicker:
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    I think "the best = the least worst". How could it not? :yawn:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I think "the best = the least worst". How could it not?180 Proof

    What you desire and what you settle for are two different things. Nevertheless, we could say best = least worst and that, my friend, is how the evil genius plays with us.
  • PhilosophyRunner
    302
    Coming form an entirely mechanistic perspective (I know, I know, this is a philosophy forum sorry!)

    Isn't antinatalism an evolutionary dead end strategy, and hence natural selection would over time sort it out? I.E a species that had dominant antinatalist tendencies would simply go extinct and be replaced by a species with less antinatalist tedencies?

    Wanting to have progeny seems to be a fundamental and necessary building block of life.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    Again, you've lost me.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Again, you've lost me.180 Proof

    Apologies, unintended.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k

    I thought it was an interesting post. I'm trying to understand the difference between the moral and ethical here. It looks like a mix of a couple things:
    1) Moral = personal ideas
    2) Ethical = social ideas

    OR

    1) Moral = deontological thinking (it is always wrong when X)
    2) Ethical = utilitarian thinking (whatever X thing brings about the greater good)

    That seems to be how you are using them in the context of the OP, but I am not quite sure. Can you explain that distinction more clearly?

    Also, I am a bit confused on the trolley problem and how this ties in.

    You said:
    E) One person dying is one less suffering and their friends and family suffering. Five people dying is five less suffering and their friends and families suffering. It does not matter if one or five die if others will mourn their loss and continue the cycle of suffering.I like sushi

    I don't think that's quite the an antinatalism take. You also might be confusing antinatalism with general philosophical pessimism which are tied, but not the same. There are philosophical pessimists, for example, who would disagree with antinatalism for the same reasons you describe in E, which is that what's the use in trying to diminish birth if eventually other species will be born and possibly also develop self-awareness and more suffering.. like it's built into the universe.

    But besides that point, I think bot M and E are simply non-antinatalist territory to begin with. AN is about how to prevent birth. By the time of the Trolley Dilemma, it's too late as it's no longer about preventing birth. They are already born, obviously.

    However, it is generally true that a philosophical pessimist/AN might bemoan the fact that someone was put in the position of having to make this decision to begin with. So I think you have it right there. The standard idea is that suffering itself is built into the human condition. However, the logic of E is not really AN. AN doesn't entail promortalism (better to be dead). Certainly, it does not entail making the decision for more deaths.

    Ultimately, it goes down to how the individual reasons and feels. The Trolley Dilemma often comes with the idea that the one person is someone you know dearly, so that adds to the equation. To not consider that in calculating would seem sociopathic. But discounting the higher numbers seems irrational in a utilitarian way.
  • I like sushi
    4.3k
    I will just deal with one question for now. I used the Trolley hypothetical based on ‘suffering’ which is one key factor in many antinatalist positions.

    One quick question for you. The argument for antinatalism surely has to be an ethical or moral one? If not there is literally no grounding for it as any kind of useful argument.

    Having a hard time using quotes here due stupid iPad … anyway, will look again tomorrow and see if I can do a better job of explaining the distinctions I claim lie in the Antinatalist views.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    The argument for antinatalism surely has to be an ethical or moral one?I like sushi

    Yes very much so. Don’t bring a person who experiences more inescapable, non-trivial, non consented suffering into the world. Don’t paternalistically assume what is good enough and allowable amounts of suffering for others to endure.
  • I like sushi
    4.3k
    When I refer to (M) I mean ‘morals’. When I refer to (E) I mean ‘ethics’. Debate over the exact differences are argued about in meta ethics. Generally speaking though the manner in which I used them is not some concocted definition, it is the general and widely accepted uses of these terms today in academia.

    My main conclusion in any discussion on Antinatalism is that an Antinatalist position cannot be moral and ethical, and to argue against some perceived ‘ethic’ when the position espoused is ‘moral’ is in error too. The confusion can be tackled in meta ethics too if necessary.

    I think what lies at the heart of the major disagreements we have seen on this subject on this forum relate to both those arguing for and against Antinatalism ending up arguing whilst being oblivious to the difference between ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ - or simply dropping the ball long enough to cause confusion.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    Debate over the exact differences are argued about in meta ethics. Generally speaking though the manner in which I used them is not some concocted definition, it is the general and widely accepted uses of these terms today in academia.I like sushi

    It would still be useful to summarize this distinction or provide a reference.

    My main conclusion in any discussion on Antinatalism is that an Antinatalist position cannot be moral and ethical, and to argue against some perceived ‘ethic’ when the position espoused is ‘moral’ is in error too. The confusion can be tackled in meta ethics too if necessary.I like sushi

    If this is central then it really should be explained in your words what this distinction is. It’s not so clear cut and the words have been used interchangeably in the past.

    I think what lies at the heart of the major disagreements we have seen on this subject on this forum relate to both those arguing for and against Antinatalism ending up arguing whilst being oblivious to the difference between ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ - or simply dropping the ball long enough to cause confusion.I like sushi

    Ibid
  • I like sushi
    4.3k


    https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

    https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics

    Obviously this is a VERY superficial scope as philosophers still argue today about these distinctions (if any). Undoubtedly they are necessarily connected.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k

    So yeah I pretty much had the definition correct- personal vs social.

    But not sure how it applies here. Ethics if used I this way is about institutions. The ethics of business or doctors or maybe even train conductors. But morals is what one holds individually despite institutions.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    Ah, another post about antinatalism. That, in itself, is an argument in its favor in a sense. Not only do its adherents maintain that to live is to suffer, but they repeat the claim over and over again, thus assuring that some misery, at least, will be experienced. A confirmation of the claim that to live is to suffer.

    Being born is not something we ask for nor something we can reject due to not existing before the point of our own nascent being.I like sushi

    Rather like being alive. We don't ask to be alive, nor do we reject it. It's simply the case. Whether or not to kill ourselves is a question, involving a number of considerations, involving considerations of morality and other things. Whether or not to have children is a question, also involving consideration of morality and other things. Only those who crave for certainty would claim the answer to either question is certain. Others are doomed to think.
  • I like sushi
    4.3k
    @schopenhauer1 I would think an Antinatalist is against procreation because they are against ‘suffering’ not the other way around. It therefore follows that ‘suffering’ is the primary concern here not secondary.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    If I were an evil genius, I'd make the most evil the most pleasurable.
  • Deus
    320
    The way I see the antinatalism debate is this.

    1. I am not happy therefore I should not have been born.

    2. Non-existence is the alternative proposed although it comes to late after the fact you were born.

    3. As time machines do not exist anti-Natalism is not possible.

    4. Suffering can be alleviated through various morphine’s or other drugs.

    5. Suicide is then worth considering if the physical pain prohibits the body from any pain relief.
  • Deus
    320


    A lot of people are born to parents unfit to raise them. This does not negate the child’s argument for antinatalism.

    If such parent subjected its offspring to unimaginable abuse and suffering then the child has the right to ask the question.

    But another question the child might also ask is why the hell was my mum or dad born but most importantly…couldn’t they afford a condom?
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    condomDeus

    On target mon ami! Much of the world's misery can be attributed to a lack of effective contraception. Some of us should've never been born, but here we are, monsieur/mademoiselle as the case may be, here we are!
  • I like sushi
    4.3k
    The position is that it is ‘wrong’ to have children.
  • Deus
    320


    I get you. Regardless of the antinatalists personal opinion … children will be born regardless.

    Unless of course he was in charge of the planet then there’d be no next generation and humans would all but disappear after their lifespan ends.

    Next species to evolve on the planet after the antinatalists dream is achieved is squirrels, possibly pigeons but most likely cats…purrrrr

    Meow!
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    children will be born regardless.Deus

    Most unfortunate that! Children are our investment in society - our contribution to the group, an extra hand, an Einstein, a good samaritan. Sadly, things sometimes don't go as planned.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    Whether or not to have children is a question, also involving consideration of morality and other things. Only those who crave for certainty would claim the answer to either question is certain. Others are doomed to think.Ciceronianus

    But that's the point of the debate.. At one point some people thought slavery was moral and ethical system as well as medieval cruel and unusual punishment, and inquisitions, and total conquest of a peoples, etc. etc. Doesn't mean it's right!
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    A lot of people are born to parents unfit to raise them. This does not negate the child’s argument for antinatalism.Deus

    The child makes no such argument. Antinatalism as I understand it is absolute in its condemnation. Depending on age, a child may wish it hadn't been born to the child's parents (and we should wish that as well if they're unfit), but it wouldn't maintain it's wrong for anyone to have children under any circumstances, nor should we.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    But that's the point of the debate.. At one point some people thought slavery was moral and ethical system as well as medieval cruel and unusual punishment, and inquisitions, and total conquest of a peoples, etc. etc. Doesn't mean it's right!schopenhauer1

    Certainly not. I'm not at all sure, though, that there are many who claim that people should have children under any circumstances, because it's moral and ethical to do so. If antinatalists maintain that we should exercise reasonable judgment in determining whether to have children, who could object to that? But that's not what they maintain, by my understanding (if I'm wrong, please let me know).
  • I like sushi
    4.3k
    My argument is that Antinatalism has two lines of attack (1) An ’ethical’ one (2) a ’moral’ one. Both opposing each other, which is why there is an issue when it comes to unravelling an Anitnatalists points/evidence for their cause.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    If antinatalists maintain that we should exercise reasonable judgment in determining whether to have children, who could object to that? But that's not what they maintain, by my understanding (if I'm wrong, please let me know).Ciceronianus

    Rather, they maintain that a reasonable judgement would come to the conclusion that starting another's life, is ALWAYS problematic/wrong. Just like a little bit of slavery is not right either.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    My argument is that Antinatalism has two lines of attack (1) An ’ethical’ one (2) a ’moral’ one. Both opposing each other, which is why there is an issue when it comes to unravelling an Anitnatalists points/evidence for their cause.I like sushi

    Since you have not provided how ethical and moral are defined in context of antinatalism, you are missing pieces that would even lead to a conclusion that can be debated. You need to flesh out (but very succinctly) what moral vs. ethics is.. and how moral and ethics are being equivocated, but with very precise understandings of where one is the moral claim and one is the ethical claim and how one is contradicting the other.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.