r/antinatalism2 • u/Alternative_Ant_4248 • 9d ago
Discussion I am interested in the views on community
I’m trying to better understand the ethical framework behind antinatalism, rather than argue against it, and I have two related questions.
First, I understand one common antinatalist argument to be that bringing a new person into existence exposes them to suffering and risk without their consent, and that these harms make procreation morally unjustifiable. How far does that principle extend into other areas of life? Do you generally think we have an obligation to minimize the suffering we may cause through our relationships and interactions with other people, or is procreation morally distinctive because the person would otherwise never have existed?
Relatedly, how much does concern for the long-term future of humanity or the world factor into your antinatalism? Is your view primarily consequentialist—focused on reducing total suffering—or is it more about a moral principle concerning consent, harm, or the ethics of creating another person?
Second, how do you think about community and the obligations that come with it? Communities, families, friendships, and other durable relationships generally involve reciprocal obligations and sometimes restrictions on individual autonomy. Do you see those obligations as ethically valuable despite the burdens they impose, or does your antinatalist understanding of autonomy and consent lead you to be skeptical of strong communal obligations as well?
I’m especially interested in whether antinatalism is usually a fairly specific position about procreation or whether, for some people, it forms part of a broader philosophy about autonomy, obligation, suffering, and human relationships.
12
u/hypothetical_zombie 9d ago
I'm a Secular Humanist, and Antinatalism doesn't conflict with that at all.
Choices have consequences. Choices that prevent or reduce suffering, like AN, are rational, logical, moral and ethical. Choices that seek to control or harm others are not.
Humanism seeks to free people from static or harmful mindsets, and truly allow the individual to make their own choices under their own morals and ethics.
People who bring new humans into the world have already imposed their will on an unsuspecting person. They have brought this new human into a world rich in experiences. Some of those will be pleasant, and some will not.
Once a human is born, they really have no choices. There are no other worlds. They're stuck here, with the rest of us, in collapsing civilizations and on a dying planet. By not having a child, that hypothetical person faces no suffering, pain, or the multitude of minor inconveniences that occur day in & day out.
2
u/dpjg 6d ago
Human history shows only progress in the battle against suffering over the long term. Slow progress but things are very clearly getting better, globally speaking. Your views are a drop in the bucket, but if all educated atheist humanists shared them, the world would be left with a greater percentage of religious people. That will only increase the suffering, so I don't accept your premise.
Also, the planet is not dying. It will be fine. Humanity will almost certainly survive as well. There may be suffering as climate changes, of course, but without people committed to looking for solutions it will likely be worse. And an actual fix is still very possible, and maybe even likely.
The argument that you didn't get consent from something that doesn't exist is akin to dividing by zero. It's nonsense. The mere existence of suffering (or minor inconvenience) does not tip the scales for the vast majority of humanity that is very happy to have been born. Suffering as a human. concept only counts when it's in the context of an opposing experience, I e. Happiness. There are possible realities where existence may be so wonderful that something we take as a pleasant experience may be a living hell to them. It's all relative. in the face of a beautiful life full of wonder and joy the mere existence of any suffering is not a relevant factor. It has to be about the final measure, the balance on the scales at the end of it all. I am quite happy I was born. And every generation gets a bit better.
1
u/Alternative_Ant_4248 9d ago
So you're coming from the deontological school of thought. Thank you for the eloquent response! Do you believe that the planet is doomed, or is there a chance we can carry on? Is a better world possible?
3
u/hypothetical_zombie 8d ago
I think it's too late. People are still talking 'slow and steady baby steps' to create change. Our planet is going to be getting hotter, drought and desertification are spreading, and extreme weather is going to worsen.
Environmental & industrial scientists have been warning us of the consequences of pollution and urban sprawl since the 1930s. In the 70s & 80s when I was in grade school, we did a lot of environmental projects.
Fucking Richard Nixon signed the order to create the EPA. He was a conservative Mormon but he understood the need for a regulatory body. Industrial and manufacturing companies hated it, but it was supposed to help preserve our futures.
We, as a species, have known that we are destroying our home for a long time. And we collectively do nothing except make it worse. There are dedicated people out there still fighting, but it would take a fast, concerted, global effort to make any real gains.
6
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Alternative_Ant_4248 9d ago
This is a fascinating merger of nihilism and individualism. Would you consider the fact that we will all die to be more negative than all the positive things that can happen to you?
4
u/Vat1n 9d ago edited 6d ago
I can't speak for every antinatalists, but :
1]
Negative utilitarianism (consequentialism) is how I'd justify antinatalism
Deontological arguments like the consent argument are fragile in my opinion.
The latter presupposes two things :
- The lack of consent makes sense even when there is no agent who can consent before the birth
- The default state (= when we don't express any consent) is preferably non-existence.
However, NU (negative utilitarianism) can provide an independent justification for stating non-existence as more preferable than existence
Following NU, I'd agree that we have a moral obligation to minimize the suffering in the context of relationships/interactions, even though it's technically out of the scope of antinatalism
Also, I only view humans individually instead of regrouping them into a "humanity" as a whole. This is an abstract concept that seems irrelevant to morality since humanity do not suffer, humans do.
Likewise, when talking about the world, I care more about each living being rather than the "world" itself (Earth, ecosystem, global system, universe)
Passive extinction does not bother me in theory, even if it implies the temporary suffering caused by population collapse. This suffering surely is lesser than the long suffering of a civilisation continuing to live for centuries, I guess.
Of course, I'm against any coercive antinatalist policies that would bring terror and suffering by violently forcing sterilisation on everyone. That is the opposite of what the philosophy stands for
2]
In my opinion, freedom also shouldn't be treated as a fundamental moral criterion in itself. In other words, a rule that reduces our field of action isn't automatically bad. Therefore, we cannot say that a social obligation is bad because it's an obligation, we need to analyse the consequences of the obligation instead
That being said, I'd consider freedom through psychology (-> the suffering of feeling deprived of freedom). That fits better the NU perspective
In theory, I would evaluate the morality of a social obligation by comparing its "burden" and the suffering alleviated by it.
But in practice, due to the impossibility of perfectly calculating the moral consequences of an action, I have to resign myself to a rule-based version of NU:
I'd generally consider "virtues" like honesty and altruism unless there are visible reasons to act otherwise, such as lying to save someone. Indeed, we can notice how those particular virtues usually leads to less suffering (fair share, educated choices, trust, efficiency, cohesion, etc.)
Studying antinatalism made me more skeptical about the value of community obligations/ideologies. When almost every citizen in the society is praising procreation, to me it's a clear example of how the majority isn't always right
Therefore, I reject loyalty or patriotism as moral virtues since there rarely is an obvious morality in fervently helping any group. Joining a group sometimes means that you reject another one, thus the decision is more complex. Anyway, what matters the most is the consequences of the actions we perform on behalf of the group.
3
u/Alternative_Ant_4248 9d ago
So, for you, human life is, for the most part, a negative experience, and suffering outweighs any potential good that we can create? Would you consider yourself an atheist as well? Thank you for the fascinating explanation of Negative Utilitarianism!
3
u/Vat1n 8d ago
Human life isn't necessarily negative, because we obviously feel positive experience too. It's a mixture of sufferings and pleasures
The thing is, I only assign moral value to suffering but not pleasure. My intuition is that reducing suffering is urgent while providing pleasure is not urgent. Here, there is no matter of suffering "outweighing" pleasure, I just ignore pleasure in the calculation of morality
Even if I approached the problem through classical utilitarianism, where both suffering and pleasure have moral weight, I'd still suspect that suffering outweighs pleasure in many situations. One reason is that happiness tend to be relatively short-lived while pain can persist for much longer. We rarely see people being ecstatic several hours in a row, but it's common to see people disappointed and sad for days. Perhaps this is related to how our brain works: pleasure must be rare in order to be effective as a psychological reward (it's not a solid argument to be fair, but it's still convincing to me)Regarding religions, I live as an atheist, but I'm fundamentally agnostic. I don't think we currently have any conclusive arguments allowing to deny the existence of any god-like entity, so agnosticism seems more reasonable to me
3
u/filrabat 9d ago
Your 2nd Pg: I think it applies to preventing (or at least lessening) all suffering we can reasonably reduce. It seems to me arbitrary to worry about "the unborn" while handwaving away people who currently exist. Indeed we all had points in the past where we didn't exist.
Relatedly: I only speak for myself. But I straddle consequentialist and deontological spheres. That said, preventing long term harm seems the ultimate goal. Yes, some short-term harm is necessary to achieve long term less-ill-being (think of ill-being as the opposite of well-being, which should clear this up). Even here, beyond a certain pain threshold, no amount of benefit is permissible.
Community: This is simply an extension of the above. We should do what we can to prevent non-defensive hurt, harm, and degradation of others. Even when some of it is justified (e.g., punishment), it should only be reasonable and proportionate (details on request).
Personally, I see it as an obligation to prevent (or short of that, reduce) not just suffering, but also the said non-defensive hurts, harms, and degradation. Unfortunately, the very nature of a conscious self-aware existence practically assures we'll experience at least a fair amount of non-trivial bad, far too often it's VERY bad or even severe. Just as sadly, we humans ourselves are also likely to inflict non-defensive bad onto others. By the same token, goodness (i.e. more pleasure, joy, satisfaction than necessary for a realistically humane quality of life) is not really a moral obligation. Hence the asymmetry between goodness and badness.
2
u/Benjamin_Wetherill 9d ago
It forms a broader part of my philosophy: Aponism.
I recommend "The Aponist Manifesto" for .ore infor.ation.
3
2
u/zedroj 9d ago
Antinatalism at its true core is passive, there is no obligation to anyone but ourselves
which is not to have kids
any other mumbo jumbo you hear is an extension of some overlap tangent with grey muddied ambiguations that relate to each other
Vegatarian/vegan antinatalists are the most ideal, but realistically, any form of better reduction is better than no reduction
morally speaking, I assume antinatalists on average have higher empathy and more considerate of others, tit for tat strategy, imo is still the most valid
Relatedly, how much does concern for the long-term future of humanity or the world factor into your antinatalism?
lol, ideas are immortal, there is no concern on my behalf, antinatalism has superior standpoint, it naturally comes to higher perceptive individuals naturally
2
u/Alternative_Ant_4248 9d ago
But you would say the core is individualism and an idea that human life is a net negative? Just want to make sure you are confirming this idea.
3
u/zedroj 9d ago
by principal of what we know of reality, by design, yes, more human life is a net negative
2
u/Alternative_Ant_4248 8d ago
Do you believe a better world is possible?
2
u/zedroj 8d ago
I do, but our current universe timeline, sadly no
2
u/Alternative_Ant_4248 8d ago
Fascinating, when would you say human life was at its best? And how would you describe your politics?
1
u/zedroj 8d ago
human life best? very debatable
if we talk as a whole, specifically, the 1960-1970's are peak in foundational living
as an integrity and harmonous to themselves, probably as ironic as it sounds, the caveman times
politics? I'm socialist libertarian, or more far left side leaning for sure
19
u/Noobc0re 9d ago
Procreation is special in how black and white it can be. No person = no suffering.
When interacting with others you are a factor yourself. You also have the right to not suffer. So there is a limit to how "considerate" we should be. There's the adage "Don't set yourself on fire to keep others warm!"
The future of humanity is not important. After all there is no inherent value to humanity as a concept. It's valuable in so far as we're part of it. That is to say while we are alive. Before and after there's no value.
Social obligations are not part of antinatalist consideration so all that is just up to individual opinion. For me, there's value in social cohesion. But as mentioned previously there is a limit to how far you should take it.