On Antinatalism

[Deathraider]

Antinatalism is broad philosophical position that believes that having children is morally wrong. Some believe that it is conditional (certain cases it may be wrong, for instance if the parent is ill suited to be a parent). Other believe it’s unconditional. I would like to make an argument for the latter point and give my thoughts and position.

My views:

Some antinatalist may argue that having children is morally wrong due to the quality of life of those children being overall negative. I do not believe that argument is well sounded due to the assumption of quality of life. My argument is independent of the question of quality of life. I believe that in general, it is morally wrong to have children due to the impossibility of consent.

1.

Coming into existence necessarily impacts an individual’s well being, whether good or bad, while not coming into existence doesn’t impact an individual’s well being (due to the fact that if someone doesn’t exist, they can’t experience anything).

2.

When it comes to making decisions that will directly impact one’s well being (whether good or bad), one should ask for the consent of the individual which will be impacted. Failure to do so, regardless of whether the individual’s wellbeing is positively or negatively impacted is morally wrong.

3.

It is impossible to ask for the consent of someone who has not yet existed.

Conclusion:

Bringing someone into existence is necessarily immoral.

This argument and position will definitely inflame a lot of people opinions, and so I shall address common counter arguments.

A person have the right to have kids

A person has a right to do an action in so far as it does not directly impact another person’s well being. Ex. A person has the right to have sex in so far as the other person consents, regardless if the sex will positively or negatively impact the other person’s well being. Because of this, a parent does not have the right to bring someone into existence. They can exercise their rights in other ways like adopting children.

You wouldn’t exist if your parents didn’t conceive you

Many actions in history that have brought me (and many people) into existence should be condemned. The idea that you wouldn’t exist because of an action is no moral justification for said actions.

It is not realistic to expect everyone to follow this standard

Admittedly, this is true. Not everyone will follow this standard, but it doesn’t mean the individuals which do find themselves convinced by this argument shouldn’t strive to adhere to the standard.

[ThoughtfulSoul]

The thing is, nobody’s got a perfect life; all of us have had our share of suffering at some point in our lives. As such, the idea of not letting new lives into being for they’re gonna suffer is just ridiculous and ironic (for the people holding this view are existing in a state contradictory to the one they’re glorifying) in my opinion. Many anti-natalists also claim that the future generation would suffer because of the changes in the environment, but the other side of the story is that human beings have a natural tendency to adapt to and learn about their surroundings—this is what we’ve been doing for all these years: evolving as per the changes taking place around us. We learn something new every day, and every day we come up with all sorts of ideas that if executed would have an impact on our generation and the ones yet to come. And who knows, one day we might come up with solutions to all the problems we’re facing right now and make the planet a better place. Overall, the future holds infinite possibilities; and one must look forward to it rather than attempting to erase it for good.

[Deathraider]

My argument isn’t saying whether wellbeing of a person existing will either be impacted positively or negatively, it’s that such decision affect wellbeing, decisions affecting wellbeing require the consent of the person it’s affecting and such consent is impossible to obtain, hence the decision ought not to be made.

[ThoughtfulSoul]

A hard pill to swallow. But thanks for enunciating your argument further.

[White_Widow]

So if everyone would uphold this, then we'd go extinct?

I think it's everyone's own choice whether they want kids or not. Is it immoral to have kids because you can't ask a unborn child if he/she wants to be brought into this world? Maybe. But that would make making decisions for a kid till he/she is 18 also immoral.

Would it be morally sound letting kids make all the decisions, would we live in a better world if we did? I doubt it tbh.

It's an interesting topic to discuss though. I'm curious as to what other people will say.

[Deathraider]

Hmmm... okay.

Suppose we took for granted perhaps with kids, since they are not capable of making decisions, parents should decide in the best interest of the child. Is it in their best interest to be brought into existence, knowing that great harm is not at stake if they don’t exist, whereas great harm is at stake and can be very severe if they do exist? Even considering that parents can make decisions for children, they ought to do such that it aligns with the best interest of the child, which I don’t think being brought into existence is necessarily so.

[White_Widow]

We as parents hold that power whether they're existence is for the good or bad of this world. It's not something that is determined before being brought into existence. Every child is born the same way, blank. It isn't till later they're existence gets meaning. That meaning is being given by the parents, other social elements and their environment. (their upbringing)

I think the better question is: Do we live in a world where we want our children to grow up in? And if not... What is needed to change that?

[Deathraider]

Well who are we to decide someone should exist? Even if their existence ended up as being overall good, shouldn’t the decision require consent? When parents decide to have kids, who’s interest is considered? It can’t be the child’s best interest, for they do not exist and would experience no harm out of not existing.

Realistically though, I don’t think everyone will agree with the conclusion. And I think any legislation that attempts to outlaw reproduction is necessarily infringes on more rights of individuals than tolerating reproduction. The will to refrain from reproduction must be voluntary. They best we could do is the improve the quality of life for everyone else.

[White_Widow]

I agree to a certain extent that the decision to exist should require consent. But to draw the conclusion that there is no harm in being non-existent. Is a conclusion based on zero evidence. We don't know that.

On the other hand, to get back to my first reply, if it's OK to have a child and make decisions in kids their best interests, one could throw in the argument its in the best interest of mankind to reproduce.

Besides that, YES we should try to improve the quality of life for everyone. Maybe there should be a third objective party to check people that want kids, to see if they are suited to become parents so that we can prevent some of the harm to kids. But that's never going to happen.

[EternallyCorrect]

What you have to understand is that this is biologically driven.

There are adaptive and maladaptive genes. Adaptive genes help you to survive and reproduce. Maladaptive genes work against survival and reproduction.

These genes not only affect the body but also the mind and the way you think.

People with adaptive genes are born with strong paternal/maternal instincts, and a natural love for children. This has always been adaptive because those people are the ones most likely to take great care of any children they have to ensure their survival.

People who say that they dislike or even hate kids are lacking that natural instinct. They're maladaptive. It's these people who are antinatalists.

Something's wrong with them, and because it's genetic it can't be "fixed", and you will never change their minds.

[Deathraider]

I don’t intend to force anyone to change, but I don’t think it’s impossible to restrain oneself. Just because it’s naturally advantageous, doesn’t mean it’s right.

[zagor]

So? A lot of things happen without consent. People don't wish for their bodies to age and decay. Who enjoys shitting?

[Deathraider]

But those things we can’t do anything about as of yet. But having children is something we can restrain ourselves from doing.

[zagor]

How do you know they don't want to be born? Every day you do things without being sure of the consent of others. Going through a green light assumes the intent of others to stop and not smash into you.

[Deathraider]

I mean I never assumed they don’t want to be born. I mean do you need the assumption that someone doesn’t want to have sex for sex without consent to be rape? I mean you could have zero knowledge about that and it’s still rape. Likewise, you could have zero knowledge of whether someone will want to exist and wouldn’t it be wrong to bring them into existence without their consent.

[zagor]

Irrelevant comparison. Unless that person is passed out, it is pretty easy to discern their consent to sex.

[Deathraider]

But if you had zero knowledge about whether they will want it or not, is it wrong to still engage sex without their consent?

[zagor]

Again, it is very easy to verify: Ask. But impossible in someone who doesn't exist.

[Deathraider]

Exactly. If you can’t verify someone has consented, should you do it knowing it affects their wellbeing?

[zagor]

They always have the right to cancel when they get older...

[anylolone]

I believe in voluntary eugenics, I'm practicing by not having biokids.
I have some congenital issues, not something most people would care about, but I do.

[marc94]

Antinatalism... lol