Perhaps when the antinatalist makes his arguments, "suffering" is simply too strong of a word, with too narrow of a scope for the argument to be taken seriously. It is quite easy for a prospective (or current) parent to rationalize, "it is possible my child will suffer at some point in his/her life, but he will overcome it. The good experiences of his life will outweigh the negative." As if the suffering of life is set against a background of positive existence. I think a better word to be used, when setting out the harm of life is not "suffering", but rather the Pāli concept, "dukkha", which means discomfort, disease, dissatisfaction, restlessness, suffering, etc. Ajahn Piyadhammo explains:



I think realistically, until someone grasps the first noble truth of Buddhism, until they have that gestalt shift where their endless striving, grasping, and desiring reveals itself, antinatalism will just be seen as some fringe argument put forth by the depressed and mentally ill. You can endless argue about consent and potential people, but it's a waste of time if the opponent still fundamentally sees life as a good thing.

OK, I just reviewed some of this thread and a couple of points:

As I have used a different language game of sorts as presenting this as either an all or nothing zero-sum game of either living in a perfect world where nobody causes any harm or the alternative of living in a world where some harm occurs (How much? Can any antinatalist really resolve this issue with some objective measure?).

Actually, I'll just leave it at that. Let's see how the antinatalist resolves how much suffering is tolerable, or does the whole thing come off as some fundamentalism if no suffering or harm is demanded.

Actually, I'll just leave it at that. Let's see how the antinatalist resolves how much suffering is tolerable, or does the whole thing come off as some fundamentalism if no suffering or harm is demanded. — Wallows

One thing about these arguments is that pro-natalism is taken as the default position, which the antinatalist must argue and combat against. But surely the onus is on the natalist to present and justify his/her case. She/he is the one creating a being that will be afflicted by dukkha, when there is absolutely no need or desire to do so (from the child's perspective). It is on the natalist to resolve this issue before procreating.

The antinatalist seems to completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of conceptions are unintentional. Do antinatalists differ on abortion?

Edit: well maybe not a vast majority. I’m not sure on that, but they are very common.

C'mon, you can't give a single example? — Terrapin Station

Uhhhhh. Ok. How about: falling off a bike and breaking your leg. That was partially caused by you being born in the first place. Was it not?

Do antinatalists differ on abortion? — Noah Te Stroete

Most are "pro death". Which means you should need a reason NOT to abort not a reason to abort. Abortion should be the default not birth.

I’m really not at all interested in this debate intellectually. I find it amusing, however.

Actually, I'll just leave it at that. Let's see how the antinatalist resolves how much suffering is tolerable — Wallows

This is inconsequential to the argument. "Let's see how much torture he can stand before it counts as doing something bad". It doesn't matter whether or not suffering is tolerable, inflicting any suffering for no good reason is morally evil.

you literally contradicted yourself in the same sentence.....

None of this makes any sense. Surely suffering is unavoidable in the every day world we live in. So, the question again is when is living OK?

"Just in case having a child doesn't cause suffering, then there's no justification for antinatalism"--I don't at all agree with that statement. I'd need to agree with it to see my comments as an argument against antinatalism.

(At this, by the way, I wouldn't say that having a child can cause no suffering. But we'd need to specify the suffering in question and see whether we can peg the causal chain in question. Of course, I don't hinge any ethical stance of the concept of suffering, but that's another issue.)

At any rate, no fact can justify any normative, so pointing out that something isn't a fact also isn't going to undermine any normative--because the normative can't be supported by the fact in the first place. This is not to comment on rhetorical, persuasive power of anything, but that's simply a matter of whether we're appealing to someone's psychological biases.

And that you use "cause" in a manner different than I do doesn't make my usage flawed. As for "reductive," that would need to be defined better and why it's supposed to be negative would need to be supported.

Uhhhhh. Ok. How about: falling off a bike and breaking your leg. That was partially caused by you being born in the first place. Was it not? — khaled

So presumably, you don't buy that people have free will?

? It was a yes or no question. And the answer, given good reading comprehension, should have been "no. — Terrapin Station

One of your bad arguments is the "suffering of parent" for not begetting someone else that would be harmed argument, yes.

And that you use "cause" in a manner different than I do doesn't make my usage flawed. As for "reductive," that would need to be defined better and why it's supposed to be negative would need to be supported. — Terrapin Station

No it would make it a huge category error. You would be applying it to specific instances, when at the procreational decision-making level, it prevents ALL harm for a future life. Again, self-evident that being born causes harm, and procreation causes people to be born.

One of your bad arguments is the "suffering of parent" for not begetting someone else that would be harmed argument, yes. — schopenhauer1

It's a problem that you can't even understand or learn that that's not an argument about antinatalism on my part. If you can't learn that, how would it be possible for us to have a conversation?

No it would make it a huge category error. — schopenhauer1

How would you describe the category error in question?

None of this makes any sense. Surely suffering is unavoidable in the every day world we live in. So, the question again is when is living OK? — Wallows

No that is not the question at all. The question "when is living OK" is very different from the question "When is it ok to impose living on someone else". Living might be ok for most people most of the time but that doesn't mean it is moral to impose it on someone else. Example: Living is ok for most blind people, however that doesn't imply that it is ok to go around slashing people's eyes.

To quote from David Benetar (roughly)
"There is a huge difference between a life worth living and a life worth starting. No lives are worth starting but most are worth living"

To quote from David Benetar (roughly)
"There is a huge difference between a life worth living and a life worth starting. No lives are worth starting but most are worth living" — khaled

How is that? Can you elaborate?

So presumably, you don't buy that people have free will? — Terrapin Station

That is irrelevant. All I need for my claim is that suffering is inevitable at some point. Free will or not is irrelavent. It's either:

Person A was born -> Person A chose to do something stupid -> Person A broke his leg

or

Person A was born -> Person A was determined to do something stupid -> Person A broke his leg

Both cases can be causally linked to Person A being born. So being born is a direct cause of any specific instance of suffering, free will or not. Person A couldn't have chosen to break his leg if he wasn't born nor could he have been determined to do it

The problem with that argument is that you can't impose living on someone else. There needs to be a someone else to impose something on them, but there is no one to impose something on prior to the person in question living already.

You'd have to say that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things, but of course that would introduce a bunch of nonintuitive upshots that you don't want to introduce.

How is that? Can you elaborate? — Wallows

Putting people in a tolerable situation isn't automatically morally ok. If someone breaks my leg, it will heal in a while. That doesn't mean breaking other people's legs is ok just because the suffering inflicted is bearable. Most lives are bearable and are therefore worth living. However no lives are worth starting, because starting a life is a risk you take for someone else which is always bad assuming they have not asked you to take that risk.


I would actually as YOU to elaborate why you're setting the standard for having a child at "Is the life bearable?" I think you need to explain THAT one first. Because it sound to me like you're saying something along the lines of "How much can we torture this kid before it becomes a bad thing"

It's not irrelevant to saying that something caused something else.

If we buy that there is free will and I make a free will decision to do x, how does it make sense to say that I was caused to do x by anything other than my own decision?

You'd have to say that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things — Terrapin Station

I did. And so did you. You said genetically modifying babies to suffer is bad. Genetic modification and birth are both things you do to organic materials that turn into living things.

If we buy that there is free will and I make a free will decision to do x, how does it make sense to say that I was caused to do x by anything other than my own decision? — Terrapin Station

Of course it makes sense:

If you are presented with the option to pick between A, B, C and D and you pick C using your free will, you were caused to pick C by two things

1- Your free will
2- The fact that C was an option in the first place

You said genetically modifying babies to suffer is bad — khaled

Babies aren't living things?

Sperm and eggs aren't living things?

The fact that C was an option in the first place — khaled

If I was caused to pick C by the fact that it was an option in the first place, then how could I have picked another option?

You're not saying that a cause can obtain without the effect in question, are you?

Sperm and eggs aren't living things? — khaled

I didn't say anything about sperm and eggs, though.

I would actually as YOU to elaborate why you're setting the standard for having a child at "Is the life bearable?" I think you need to explain THAT one first. Because it sound to me like you're saying something along the lines of "How much can we torture this kid before it becomes a bad thing" — khaled

Well, because you seem to imply that life is not worth living because it contains harm in it. Does life then only make sense in some highly idealized utopia where no suffering is to be experienced? Hence, the all or nothing logic inherent here that I mentioned earlier

Again You'd have to say that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things