Having children is immoral (antinatalism)

Great Debates
1

To quote the antinatalism blog:

Antinatalism follows a chain of logic like this:

  1. It is morally wrong to inflict suffering on others.
  2. Every human life is filled with suffering.
  3. Creating a new life is a decision.
  4. Those creating new lives are actively inflicting suffering on a whole new generation.
  5. Creating new lives is immoral.
    The difference between living your own life as you see fit and deciding to bring a new consciousness into the world is the difference between going to a casino and betting with your own money versus betting someone else’s.

It has been said that the greatest war crime is launching a war of aggression. All the thousands of crimes both petty and large which occur after that act are bound up in the initial violation. Similarly, the greatest sin imaginable is to breed. Every miserable aspect of humanity is contained within that act. With no breeding there’s no war, no genital mutilation, no starvation, no disease and there’s also no minor daily suffering, like embarrassment among one’s peer group, stubbing one’s toe, divorcing after finding out your mate of eight years is cheating with your best friend, or watching one’s parents waste away in a hospital bed.

The world is a nasty, vile place for the majority of humankind and the reasons why this is so do not need to be reviewed in gruesome detail here. I am fortunate enough to have been born in a rich, comfortable Western country, yet even I will become sick and die and leave behind depressed friends and family. If I know ten random women then I know several rape victims. For all I know tomorrow I will be horribly mangled in a car accident and suffer from debilitating pain the rest of my life. Or maybe I won’t. It’s all in the luck of the draw. If I or anyone chooses to breed we are rolling the dice on the well being of a person who didn’t ask to be brought into this world.

On the whole, it is better to have never existed. A person who never exists will never eat cookies and milk, orgasm, or enjoy a fulfilling relationship, but they will also never suffer, and that’s all that matters. Moreover, they will never mourn their inability to orgasm because they don’t exist.

There are several reasons why many people will not agree with this. For one, breeding is a hardcoded instinct in all our brains, one which can not be uprooted using rational thought. Also, there are several coping mechanisms to deal with hard reality: life affirmation myths and cultural memes which tell us that life is good and it’s a spiritually fulfilling act to bring children into this world.

Parents will (obviously) be offended at the notion that they are directly responsible for their children’s woes. A couple who give birth to a child with a chronic disease may fight thinking that if they had simply chosen not to give in to their baser instincts to make more lives then there would be less suffering in the world. But it is an inescapable conclusion.

Interestingly enough, it is fairly common in these sorts of discussions in meat space for someone who does not wish to have children (or only one) to be labeled as “selfish.” Isn’t that bold? Having children is one of the most selfish, vain acts I can imagine. Children are brought into this world to be used in some way. Maybe so men can show the world how virile they are. Or as real life lovey dovey dolls. Or so parents can live through their children. Or as future caregivers. Or as glue for marriages which have gone sour. Maybe they’ll have one or two more to please the grandparents. Or to fit in with all their other friends who are breeding.

Unless I am lucky enough to find a like-minded partner I will most likely fall for the call of the wild like anyone else. But at least I will be able to admit truthfully what I’m doing and what a heartless bastard I am for bringing forth a new cycle of death. Can you?

2

Actually, I’m glad I was born. :slight_smile:

3

Sounds like sombody seriously needs a prescription for antidepressants. Or a puppy, or something.

4

Its an utterly rational argument. And if you have to explain why its also a howling void, you probably should be talking to somebody else.

5

I asked about kids tangentially in this thread of mine. There are some interesting responses in that regard.

6

Let’s see if we can’t reverse your logic.

  1. It is morally righteous to bring joy and love into the world.
  2. Every human life is filled with the opportunity for joy and love.
  3. Creating a new life is the default condition of life itself.
  4. Those creating new lives are actively bringing the opportunity for joy and love into the world.
  5. Creating new lives is morally righteous.
    Argue that the biosphere is better off without us. Argue that we would be much better off if we made sure that every new life was wanted and provided for. Argue that we are flawed and will remain so, even if we strive to perfect ourselves.

But the argument that making babies is evil is flawed, self-centered, nihilistic, and stupid.

7

Why is it that people so misanthropic never remember that extinction begins at home?

8

Incorrect; some children are born with birth defects or into a life of abuse that ensures that they will never know anything but suffering before death.

And while technically most lives have at least a little happiness, I find it silly to argue that someone who’s life was 90% utter misery was better off having existed.

What makes you think they don’t ? Do you have a study showing that people who disapprove of having children tend to have them ?

Realistically, the anti-children argument always loses because the people who make it leave no descendants to carry on the argument, not because they don’t have a point.

9

So, birth defects or abuse equals no opportunity for joy or love then, eh? Pity.

10

And you think being in agonizing pain 24 hours a day your whole ( short ) life, and then dying leaves any room for happiness ? Or being tortured to death by your parents in infancy ?

11

How is this relevant to someone who doesn’t plan on torturing their children and knows the child is expected to be born healthy?

The OP refers to conscious decisions. Obviously, if Parents A and B know their child is healthy and don’t plan to waterboard it, these points are not relevant to the morality of having children.

12

It was a response to Leaffan’s criticism of my response to phouka’s point 2.

13

Reminds me of the Cathars.

I like having intelligence at large in the universe – imperfect, suffering, half-crazy human intelligence. I want our species to survive, even if we never achieve some kind of spiritual perfection.

I’m selfish enough that I also want human civilization to survive, not just the species. The biggest threat to that is the ongoing population explosion; when I saw the thread title, I thought it was about overpopulation, and how it’d be really great if people would stop having babies for a couple of decades.

14

Okay, how about this: Having children is immoral if you plan to abuse them and make their lives miserable.

Or if you know that they’ll be so burdened with birth defects that they truly, literally will never know anything but suffering. But I doubt that that happens anywhere near as often as a life filled with opportunities for joy and love.

I think the point was, if someone really thinks existence is so miserable, why do they continue to exist?

15

Because they are hard-wired to fear death?

It seems very reasonable to have someone who thinks that life is miserable, but not wish to exit it because the instinct for survival overcomes the desire to end it all.

On the other hand, the instinct to procreate is not as strong, so in some individuals the belief that life has more misery than joy overcomes the desire to have children.

16

We will all cause someone to suffer in our lifetime, however large or small that may be. If suffering is utterly and always wrong, then why shouldn’t we all off ourselves? Isolated suicide would leave people to suffer in mourning (hopefully), but there won’t be anyone left to suffer through our passing if all of humanity is gone…

I feel like I’ve played a videogame where the villain espouses just such a philosophy. I can’t remember if it was FFXI: Chains of Promathia, or Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2. Anyway, I don’t agree that suffering is always a moral wrong.

17

Seymour of FF X had an attitude like that; “Let us save Spira ! Let us destroy it !”

18

Ah, thanks for the info :slight_smile:

19

I hope the people who believe this crap actually practice what they preach. It will be a better world.

20

Consider the following scenario
[ul]
[li]You wake up and find yourself at a party.[/li][li]You don’t remember how you got there, and there are no windows to see outside the room.[/li][li]People in the room are dancing and having fun[/li][li]Some people, however, will suddenly feel a huge pain and have to stop dancing for a while, but eventually they return to dancing[/li][li]Every once in a while, some thugs will come and punch the living shit out of someone. The person recovers after some time, and resumes dancing.[/li][li]A small number of people will start to feel pain, but will not get better, and for the rest of the party will sit there and watch the rest dance and have fun[/li][li]Every few minutes, darkness envelopes one of the people dancing and he vanishes. Nobody knows what happens to these people or where they go.[/li][li]You, personally, have not felt much pain yet, and have spent most of the time dancing, but there is no guarantee of how much pain is to come.[/li][li]You find a cell phone and you remember that you have a friend. You can call them to invite them to come to this party. Or you can decide not to invite them.[/li][/ul]
What do you do?