The case for antinatalism is going to be cumulative - that is, it is not going to consist of one knock-down argument, but numerous arguments that all imply the same conclusion.

In my view most procreative acts are seriously immoral, both because of the nature of the act itself - it is an act that imposes something significant on someone else without their consent - and because of what it typically says about the character of those who perform it (namely, that they are self-centred, narcissist megalomaniacs).

So here's one argument:

1. If an act will impose something significant on another person without their consent, then it is default wrong to perform that act
2. Procreating imposes something significant - life here - on another person without their consent
3. Therefore, procreative acts are default wrong

The argument is deductively valid (so its conclusion is necessarily true if its premises are). It is undeniable that the first premise has considerable support from our rational intuitions and premise 2 is obviously true.

It is undeniable that the first premise has considerable support from our rational intuitions and premise 2 is obviously true. — Bartricks

I think premise 2 is obviously false. You cannot impose life on anything.

No. We only do that when considering the consequences of a certain action. For example, we don’t think not having kids is harming anyone. Because not having kids has no negative consequence on anyone. However having kids does have negative consequences on someone in the future, it doesn’t matter if they existed at the time the decision was made — khaled

But we need to consider the consequences to someone. Ethical considerations need a subject that already exists. I am not aware of any ethical system that allows you to just jump to non-existant "potential" subjects without issue. What ethical system are you using that allows you to claim that the distinction doesn't matter?

I don’t think either is more or less wrong than the other do you? — khaled

I'd need information on why we're planting those bombs in the first place. I would accept more justifications for B than for either A or C.

But there is another problem with this example: If we consider the decision whether or not to have children, the children cannot be said to "already exist in the future". That would imply our decision has already happened.

So here is another example: Let's assume we develop some technology (or magic) that will be extremely beneficial for society for several generations, but then everyone still alive will die horribly. Assume life extension is not plausible when we make the decision, and everyone will be made aware of the eventual consequence.

Should we use that technology in order to make everyone's lifes much more pleasant right now?

Because it risks (pretty much guarantees) harming someone in the future. It doesn’t matter that that person doesn’t exist at the time — khaled

But we haven't established exactly why harming people in the future is a bad thing.

I think existing is an action. Considering it can be stopped. Maybe “living” would’ve been a better word. — khaled

I think the connotations of "living" and "existing" are very different. The former is a general description of things you do, the latter is a category of being.

You have 3 starving people And 2 solutions. Which do you employ

A: feed them
B: materialize 100 satiated and happy people so that you create more pleasure/happiness than in A

I’m pretty sure you’d say A is the better option right? Because B doesn’t actually help anyone. Doesn’t that show that creating happy people has no value in and of itself. Or at least negligible value. — khaled

I can both help starving people and have children. I won't have 100 children and I won't decide for others whether they should have children, it's a personal decision based in part on whether the parents believe they can take care of them and make them happy.

If I see starving people around me I would think about helping them before having children, because I wouldn't want my children to grow up in a society that lets people starve.

Now hypothetically, if I believed I could have happy children on some distant planet far from the problems of this society, I would probably go there and let this society deal with its problems. In some way I would see taking care of my children as taking care of a part of me, and I have spent too much time already taking care of others without taking care of myself, and I exist too, not only others exist.

That implies that not keeping a child happy is bad, not that keeping the child happy is good. — khaled

When the parents can take care of the child, I see not keeping the child happy as bad, but I still see keeping the child happy as good.

Does that justify rape, theft, murder, etc? — khaled

It doesn't, I wasn't saying it's OK to make someone have a bad experience just so you can have a good experience (which is usually the case in rape, theft, murder), but that if a human being has both good and bad experiences, then the existence of bad experiences doesn't imply it would have been better for the human being to not exist in the first place.

Through having a child we create the conditions for both positive and negative experiences in the child, through rape/theft/murder we usually create only negative experiences in our victim. If we take care well of our child we can also usually make it so that the child will have mostly positive experiences.

Do you happen to see the rapist’s desire a good reason for rape? I don’t think so. — khaled

Indeed I don't, but then again I don't equate having a child with raping someone. And it's not that what the parents are doing "isn't that bad", I don't see having a child as bad in itself.

Your child might not. So why are you taking the risk for them? For “the world”? Would you be fine if a religious zealot raided your home for “God”? If you’re not fine with that, why risk putting a child in a position where similar to you they’re told that their suffering is for “the world”? Do you think they’ll be fine with that? — khaled

Again, I don't equate having a child with raiding someone's home. If they agree that their existence serves a greater purpose then they would be less negatively affected by the suffering they encounter. If they don't see it that way, we can still make them happy as much as we can, I wouldn't force spiritual beliefs onto them no matter what.

Does that make it ok to genetically engineer babies to suffer on purpose? They can’t say no can they? — khaled

No, but again, I don't equate having a child with genetically engineering a baby so it suffers on purpose.

Also the point is that they WILL become an existing being with opinions and their opinions of the world may be highly negative. So simply don’t take the risk for them when you can avoid it. — khaled

Indeed they will become an existing being with opinions, and by then they can decide for themselves if their life is worth living or not, if they want to keep living or not, and then they might tell you "thank you for having me dad/mom, if you had been antinatalists I wouldn't have had these experiences that make life beautiful and worth living".

However, the two consequences of birth I described, hurt someone or get hurt by someone, are so certain that we may base a definitive decision on them and the decision should be not to have children. — TheMadFool

They are not so certain - they are a paranoid assumption based in a hopeless state of mind.

This very assumption is what leads to feral children - it poses no benefits, only detriment.

Maybe it makes sense in theory, but it doesn't hold up in practice.

If I see starving people around me I would think about helping them before having children, because I wouldn't want my children to grow up in a society that lets people starve. — leo

If I may add, maybe those people are starving as punishment for some crime.

A wise man once said: Before you pull someone out of the well, consider why he's there in the first place.

To reject my argument we must resort to a utilitarian calculus dependent on an improbability of the consequences I described or balancing suffering with happiness. However these are all, as you know, probabilities and we can never be sure of them to the degree required to allow us to make a decision. — TheMadFool

Yeah we can. Look around you. You'll see a world full of people. People have been sure enough to make that decision for hundreds of years. Your objection has been rejected innumerable times. It is not considered a serious enough objection.

Whether or not the living think life is worth living has nothing to do with whether or not they can add more people. — khaled

Of course it does. What an absurd denial.

Because there is a difference between an experience worth living through and an experience worth starting. Example: blindness is an experience worth living through but that doesn’t make it ok to go around hacking people’s eyes out does it? — khaled

Yes, there's a distinction, and obviously the reasoning is that because life is an experience worth living through, it's worth starting. Your analogy would be a false analogy in the full context of this discussion, because the experience of being born is nothing like the experience of having your eyes hacked out, and you don't need to have your eyes hacked out in order to start life.

Similarly, life is worth living through but that doesn't necessarily justify adding more people to it does it? — khaled

Who said anything about necessity? That's a red herring. Lot's of things aren't necessary, but are nevertheless worth doing.

Even though in both cases the person in question will likely get over the difficulties of blindness/life and come to enjoy it later. — khaled

Except that the two are not judged in the same way, so they're not truly analogous in this respect either. Way more people are glad to have been born, and many people would give you a funny look if you framed it as something to get over. That's obviously not the case with getting your eyes hacked out. Terrible argument.

What is a right? — petrichor

You know what a right is without requiring me to define it, and you're capable of thinking of examples.

What we ought to do is to stop burying the dead and instead embalm them so that all the poor depraved living can have sex with corpses and satisfy their urges without producing more suffering. folks should be encouraged to marry the dead, and research done to see if they cannot be reanimated with animatrionics for a more fulfilling experience - taking care, of course not to produce conscious computers in the process. This would be a rational minimising of suffering.

They are not so certain - they are a paranoid assumption based in a hopeless state of mind.

This very assumption is what leads to feral children - it poses no benefits, only detriment.

Maybe it makes sense in theory, but it doesn't hold up in practice. — Shamshir

Have you never been hurt and have you never hurt anyone?

"No" is an impossible answer.

the reasoning is that because life is an experience worth living through, it's worth starting. — S

That’s not reasoning that’s just your intuition. You haven’t actually thought about this. There is a clear distinction between experiences worth starting and ones worth continuing. Every experience worth starting is worth continuing (at least I can’t think of a counter example) but not vice versa. Life being an experience worth continuing doesn’t guarantee it isn’t worth starting or else living with blindness being worth continuing would guarantee it is worth starting. And neither of us thinks that.

Your analogy would be a false analogy in the full context of this discussion, because the experience of being born is nothing like the experience of having your eyes hacked out, — S

I agree. Having your skull folded and bent as you scream in pain is much worse. Childbirth is a painful experience for both mothers and children. So my analogy is apt this far.

and you don't need to have your eyes hacked our in order to start life. — S

I don’t understand what this has to do with anything. It’s almost as if you’ve already declared starting life the goal when that is exactly the topic of debate.

Who said anything about necessity? — S

I think you’re misunderstanding what I meant. I was saying that life being an experience worth living through doesn’t mean it is worth starting.

I understand that the gouging eyes out example isn’t the best. How about: having a child knowing they will be blind. Is that ethical for you?

I can both help starving people and have children — leo

This is called not addressing the hypothetical. You haven’t actually answered the question with the restraints imposed.

then the existence of bad experiences doesn't imply it would have been better for the human being to not exist in the first place. — leo

I think it does, but then again I don’t have to go to that extreme I don’t think to make my case.

Through having a child we create the conditions for both positive and negative experiences in the child, through rape/theft/murder we usually create only negative experiences in our victim — leo

Keyword: usually. Can someone then use the chances of positive experiences in crimes to justify them? I don’t think so. That’s because it would be taking a big risk for someone else right? Doesn’t childbirth do the same? Even if the chances of having pleasurable experiences are far higher in the case childbirth, why take a risk for someone else in the first place? Especially since no one actually believes that if that risk pays off that they have done something good. As I’ve said making happy people =/= making people happy. Which you would’ve seen had you actually answered the hypothetical.

Indeed I don't, but then again I don't equate having a child with raping someone. — leo

Me neither. I’m just placing them under the same “class” of behaviors. Risking both pleasure and pain for someone else without consent. It’s just that the risks are more favorable in one than in the other. I say ban the whole class though

If they agree that their existence serves a greater purpose then they would be less negatively affected by the suffering they encounter. If they don't see it that way, we can still make them happy as much as we can, I wouldn't force spiritual beliefs onto them no matter what. — leo

“If they like the game I forced them into great. If they hate it I’ll try to solve the problem I created for no reason the best I can” is not a very convincing argument for natalism to me. Why take the risk in the first place? No one has been able to answer this

No, but again, I don't equate having a child with genetically engineering a baby so it suffers on purpose. — leo

No? Why not? There is nothing that can say no to the genetic engineering is there? It’s not like there is a specter of a healthy baby that can object to changing its genetic code.

Indeed they will become an existing being with opinions, and by then they can decide for themselves if their life is worth living or not, if they want to keep living or not, and then they might tell you "thank you for having me dad/mom, if you had been antinatalists I wouldn't have had these experiences that make life beautiful and worth living". — leo

Indeed they could say that. But they could also say “Fuck you mom and dad why the fuck did you do this to me. I didn’t fucking ask to be born”. I won’t take the risk of causing someone to think that when it can be avoided.

But we need to consider the consequences to someone. Ethical considerations need a subject that already exists. — Echarmion

Explain to me why genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong then. Most explanations you come up with you will find will lead to antinatalism.

So here is another example: Let's assume we develop some technology (or magic) that will be extremely beneficial for society for several generations, but then everyone still alive will die horribly. Assume life extension is not plausible when we make the decision, and everyone will be made aware of the eventual consequence.

Should we use that technology in order to make everyone's lifes much more pleasant right now? — Echarmion

No. Because it will harm someone in the future. Unless we can cheat the system and not give birth to that final generation then heck yea

I think the connotations of "living" and "existing" are very different. The former is a general description of things you do, the latter is a category of being. — Echarmion

I agree, my bad. Everything I said still makes sense when you replace “existing” with “living” though so I don’t see an issue

Explain to me why genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong then. Whatever explanation you come up with you will find will lead to antinatalism. — khaled

I can't explain. That's why I am asking you. After all, your position depends on, or is at least strengthened by, that argument. I just say I don't know.

No. Because it will harm someone in the future. Unless we can cheat the system and not give birth to that final generation then heck yea — khaled

Well, if everyone knows, perhaps they'll all not have children. We don't know that they won't, of course. But do we need to care?

No! In very simple terms either your child will hurt or get hurt. You don't want your child to hurt someone. You don't want your child to suffer. Ergo it's unethical to have children. — TheMadFool

From within the perimeter of lowered violence of human society, it is sometimes difficult to imagine how other realities can be so different.

For example, I have recently been watching youtube videos in which killer whales hunt the calves of grey whales. It is fascinating. You can even book a cruise in the gulf of Monterey to watch them doing that. The killer whales start by switching off their sonars, because grey whales can hear sonars from at least a dozen miles away. So, the killer whales start swimming in silent combat formation, until they are very close to a grey whale mother and her calf, who then hears them and will frantically start swimming in the direction of shallow waters to escape the attack, but it may be too late.

For hours, the killer whales will try to separate the mother from her calf, by swimming in between them, or by ramming either of both, until they can start jumping on the calf to push it under and in that way drown it, after which they rip it to pieces. Here is some nice footage of a successful confiscation of a grey whale's calf:



Hence, the congratulatory applause from the bystanders on the boat. Hey, they did it!

Here some other footage, where the killer whales manage to devour another grey whale baby while the mother is taking off. Hence, the remarks, "The mum got away, but the baby they ate. Baby orcas got to eat too! The baby is dead now. They are eating it. Do you see the blood there?"



There are actually quite a few species that specifically hunt the babies of other species. For example, chimpanzees hunt the babies of Colubus monkeys. So, yes, babies of one species are a delicacy for other species. They attack, kill, and eat them with great satisfaction. So, if you have free time, go and watch killer whales eating babies. It may bring you back to the "real world"! ;-)

That’s not reasoning that’s just your intuition. — khaled

No, it's basic reasoning of a form we all make all of the time: that's worth doing, so let's do it.

Every experience worth starting is worth continuing (at least I can’t think of a counter example) but not vice versa. — khaled

Not that it matters, but it's easy to think of counterexamples. A perpetual roller coaster ride? No thanks. There'd definitely be a point where it wouldn't be worth continuing.

guarantee — khaled

No one said anything about guarantees, either. That's another irrelevant point like your point about necessity. Again, there are lots of things worth doing that don't require a guarantee, and this is one of them.

I agree. Having your skull folded and bent as you scream in pain is much worse. Childbirth is a painful experience for both mothers and children. So my analogy is apt this far. — khaled

They're obviously both painful, yes. Hence your analogy is indeed apt in that one respect. It's an apt analogy, so long as you ignore a whole bunch of important differences. So pretty useless overall.

I don’t understand what this has to do with anything. It’s almost as if you’ve already declared starting life the goal when that is exactly the topic of debate. — khaled

It obviously has to do with my reasoning in relation to the topic. Life is worth living for lots of people, and you can't have a life worth living if you don't begin to live. It's not rocket science.

I think you’re misunderstanding what I meant. I was saying that life being an experience worth living through doesn’t mean it is worth starting. — khaled

But it does mean exactly that for lots of people. That's the point.

I understand that the gouging eyes out example isn’t the best. — khaled

That's an understatement if ever I saw one.

How about: having a child knowing they will be blind. Is that ethical for you? — khaled

It can be, yes. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the lives of blind people aren't worth living on account of their blindness, and I think that a lot of blind people would strongly dispute that, and would probably find it highly offensive.

Have you never been hurt and have you never hurt anyone?

"No" is an impossible answer. — TheMadFool

It's not an impossible answer, it's an omission on your part.

Similar to the popularly phrased question: Would you rather be rich or happy? - it's misleading.
Why can't I be rich and happy or neither?
Obviously I can, but you omit that to make the responder believe he has no other choices and leave him dazed as to which to pick.

I'll add to which - even if I, myself, have been hurt and have hurt another - that does not indubitably indicate that my offspring will either be hurt or hurt another; in the same sense that a bloodline composed of ten generations worth of farmers, can suddenly produce an offspring that wants nothing to do with farming.

I can't explain. That's why I am asking you. After all, your position depends on, or is at least strengthened by, that argument. I just say I don't know. — Echarmion

So it’s wrong but you don’t know why you think it’s wrong? For my position it would be very easy to explain. Because it will harm someone in the future. I believe if an act will harm someone for no justifiable reason then it’s wrong. It doesn’t matter if there’s existed a person at the time the act took place. I don’t ridiculously think think that bombing an 18 year old is somehow more wrong if done directly or by implanting a bomb in the fetus. It doesn’t make any difference. What matters is the consequence

But do we need to care? — Echarmion

Is this the late “but actually morality doesn’t exist” card? You don’t NEED to care. I don’t understand what authority could possibly force you to care. But you’ve shown you care about ethics for the most part by engaging in discussions like these. So it was sort of too late to play the “but actually I don’t care” card because you’ve shown you do

It's easy to think of counterexamples. A perpetual roller coaster ride? No thanks. — S

Would you knowingly hop on a perpetual roller coaster though? Obviously not. Then it’s not worth starting is it?

No one said anything about guarantees — S

You did when you claimed that life being enjoyable makes it (guarantees it is) worth starting. I was pointing out that life being worth living through doesn’t guarantee it being worth starting.

Life is worth living for lots of people — S

Agreed. People who are alive have an interest in continuing living. That doesn’t guarantee the experience is worth starting as I’ve said.

But it does mean exactly that for lots of people. — S

Arguing from popularity is a fallacy first of all. So I’m going to ask YOU this: do you think every experience worth living through is worth starting? If so gouging people’s eyes out would be acceptable behavior. You don’t agree with that so I’m going to assume you don’t think every experience worth continuing is worth starting. Now the burden of proof is on you to show that life is worth starting. Because it being worth living doesn’t logically guarantee that

To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the lives of blind people aren't worth living — S

No. It would be to suggest those lives are not worth starting. Those are very different things. You keep conflating them.

Let me ask an alternative question then: is genetically modifying children to blind them ethical? And if not why not when you’ve said that having blind children is ethical

Would you knowingly hop on a perpetual roller coaster though? Obviously not. Then it’s not worth starting is it? — khaled

It's not a perpetual roller coaster, it's a perpetual roller coaster ride if you never reach a point where it isn't worth continuing. Personally, I'd get off at some point.

You did when you claimed that life being enjoyable makes it (guarantees it is) worth starting. — khaled

No, you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about guarantees. Like I said, for lots of people, life is worth living, and worth living on the basis that it's enjoyable, and you can't enjoy anything if you aren't alive.

I was pointing out that life being worth living through doesn’t guarantee it being worth starting. — khaled

And I responded that no one said anything about guarantees, and that guarantees are irrelevant. Don't send us around in circles.

Agreed. People who are alive have an interest in continuing living. That doesn’t guarantee the experience is worth starting as I’ve said. — khaled

Guarantees are irrelevant, as I've said, and as you're making me repeat.

Arguing from popularity is a fallacy first of all. — khaled

Yes, it is a fallacy. Well done. It is a fallacy I haven't committed.

So I’m going to ask YOU this: do you think every experience worth living through is worth starting? — khaled

Doesn't matter.

Now the burden of proof is on you to show that life is worth starting. Because it being worth living doesn’t logically guarantee that. — khaled

Guarantees are irrelevant. I'll keep pointing that out if you keep bringing it up. I don't have a burden to show that life is worth starting, because I've already fulfilled it. Life is worth starting because life is worth living for lots of people. The odds are favourable, and you have the option of leaving the table.

No. — khaled

Yes.

It would be to suggest those lives are not worth starting. — khaled

That's literally nonsense, as they've already started.

Let me ask an alternative question then: is genetically modifying children to blind them ethical? — khaled

The question is irrelevant.

And if not why not when you’ve said that having blind children is ethical. — khaled

Nothing I've said commits me to the view that modifying children to blind them is ethical, so I don't need to answer for that.

I did say that it can be ethical to have blind children, and I stand by that.

So it’s wrong but you don’t know why you think it’s wrong? — khaled

I haven't said that it's wrong. I said I don't know.

For my position it would be very easy to explain. Because it will harm someone in the future. I believe if an act will harm someone for no justifiable reason then it’s wrong. It doesn’t matter if there’s existed a person at the time the act took place. I don’t ridiculously think think that bombing an 18 year old is somehow more wrong if done directly or by implanting a bomb in the fetus. It doesn’t make any difference. What matters is the consequence — khaled

So, essentially utilitarianism? The problem I see with this argument is that it relies on there being two alternatives, and one leads to less suffering/more utility for the people involved. But when we are making the decision to create those people in the first place, there are no such alternatives. There is one timeline without people and one timeline with people, and you cannot compare the relative utility of these timelines because for one timeline it's an empty set.

If you're arguing that consequences, i.e. outcomes by themselves somehow have absolute ethical value, I'd have to hear an argument about how that works.

Is this the late “but actually morality doesn’t exist” card? — khaled

No, I do believe in moral philosophy as a rational discipline. I don't agree with utilitarian systems though.

Entitlement is part of ethics. It means having a right. — S

When I asked you what a right is, I was ribbing you a bit because what you said here is a little like the old "dormitive virtue" tautology:

dormitive virtue

I suspect that your belief that people are entitled to have children isn't well-examined. And I'd suspect that while you accuse others of not understanding what an entitlement is, you don't really understand it yourself.

This is a philosophy forum. And in philosophy, we often examine what most people believe without examination. Here, we have an opportunity to do some philosophy. The feeling people have that they have a right to have kids is a perfect place to question a commonly believed but rarely examined idea.

But this is a bit off-topic. I'll start another thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6564/are-we-entitled-to-have-children

What if we're not realists on rights?

Are we entitled to sex with willing partners and obligated to use birth control`? If yes, and no that we would seem to be entitled to have children.

At what point did entitlement, rights, obligations, lack of any of these arise in the evolution of animals that ended up being humans?

Let's look more closely at this particular claim that we have a right to reproduce, and at the whole concept of entitlements or rights, the belief in which I think might be worth examining. — petrichor

If we are to begin with the assumption that there are certain rights that every person has just by virtue of their existence, then I would argue that the right to reproduce is one of them within certain limits, of course, as we can always concoct a scenario where the exercise of any right would lead to societal destruction.

When we talk about rights, at least in the American context, there is the claim that they are endowed by our Creator, which is a religious reference. Atheists also believe we have all sorts of rights, but I think it's harder for them to establish a basis for them.

I am not interested in this thread in getting into a discussion about antinatalism, — petrichor

Unless you enforce that, this will turn into a anti-natalism thread. They always do. Anti-natalists are .... persistent.

If one is able to reproduce, one has the right to have children - but whether one is right in having children, is discerned by other qualities - not merely those relevant post-birth, but those relevant during birth as well.

What if we're not realists on rights? — Terrapin Station

You're welcome to attack the very idea of rights. That's part of the point of the thread.

Considering the amount of harm done to children and their environment by bad parenting, I don't think it stands to reason that every one should be having children as they desire. It's reasonable for a society to ask for healthy and functional individuals to be put into this world, and that some indication should be given beforehand as to the capability of the parents to create such individuals.

However, forbidding people from reproducing is just a horribly impractical thing, and enforcing such regulations would almost inevitably end with some draconian methods.

I understand that this is a philosophy forum. I joined it years before you did. And of course I understand what entitlement is. Why should I care about your presumptuous speculation about me?

What I think is that sometimes people try to rationalise the asking of stupid questions by suggesting that it is the mark of a profound philosophical investigation.