On Antinatalism

Person 1: Wondering your thoughts on antinatalism.

Person 2: I mean, it sounds nice to me.

Person 1: Why?

2: Well, I, for one, do not like life too much.  “To Never Have been born may be the greatest boon of all”

1: But do you believe it's a universally moral wrong to give birth to children?

2: Bah, not really but I could defend such a position. I could see why some would believe so, but I probably would not see it as a moral wrong. 

1: The reason I'm asking is because the only time I've ever said "I'm anti-life" was in a joke. I didn't realize it was a genuine philosophical position that people defend as their life's work. So I'm looking for people who either are antinatalists or who appreciate the position and asking for their defenses, because thus far I've only heard bad arguments and "this is our only option" sorts of deals.

2: Yeah, i haven't come across a living antinatalist. I doubt you'll be finding any soon either. For me, I would argue for antinatalism because it would lead to the absence of pain and suffering. To give birth would only perpetuate suffering, for the offspring is now vulnerable to suffering. 

1: But it would also lead to the absence of enjoyment, or just being, or even the opportunity for enjoyment. Is it safe to assume that life's suffering will always outweigh its benefits?

2: I would state, "not always." I would also agree with Benatar.

(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation1: [laugh] it's like you're reading the Wikipedia to me.

2: Well, yeah.

1: But Benatar would be a person to argue that it is a universal wrong.

2: True true, but for the sake of argument, let's say I do agree with him.

1: Okay, in that scenario, on what grounds do you say that the absence of pleasure isn't bad? At least in the context of a human life.

2: Well, it's not quite good or bad. Life for one that suffers from persistent depression, for example, I suppose.

1: Isn't depression bad, though? I'm not following. There's a reason we class it as a debilitating mental illness.

2: Ah, well. I guess it is bad. I'm not quite sure if I know of a context in human life then.

1: Well what I was asking was this: specifically in the context of life as a whole, how can you say that the absence of pleasure is neither good nor bad? Because for example, I can say that in any given day, I wouldn't say that I had a bad day just because I didn't do anything fun. It'd be "alright" or something. But for someone's entire life, in terms of fulfillment and long term ideals, is the absence of any pleasure really not a bad thing? Just to be clear, I'd argue that in that sense, the absence of pleasure is bad. I'd never, ever want to live a life void of pleasure. That would be unfulfilling and pointless.

2:  I'm not quite sure if I could state whether or not the absence of pleasure is good or bad. Though, for someone to live a life devoid of some pleasure seems impossible or unlikely.  Perhaps one would argue that one would never ever want to live in a world that harbors pain. 

1: Well you did say you agreed with Benatar for all intents and purposes, so I'm assuming that you're agreeing with his 4th premise that the absence of pleasure is not bad unless it deprives someone. While it's impossible or unlikely to live a life devoid of pleasure, I'd change it to more general terms: a life that has not had a satisfactory amount of pleasure; so little that someone says "my life is boring." Or "my life is unpleasant."

(Noting of course that the word unpleasant, by connotation, is bad in most contexts). And lastly, of course nobody would want to, but would they settle to live in a world where pain and suffering exists rather than to never have been born? Perhaps live to change it?

2: Well, one that lives a life and states, "my life is unpleasant", then the burden of life outweighs pleasure. To avoid such a life, one ought not to be born. It's better to be in the absence of pain than the experience of pleasure. Some, sure, may want to be born into suffering in an effort to amplify the amount of pleasure and lessen the pain. Some would not.  To have neither have suffered and to not have experienced pleasure is to be in a neutral state. The living one will experience ups and downs. In accordance to Benatar, no pain is greater than the experience of pleasure. Perhaps it is because pain is avoidable by not living.

1: I'd argue that the absence of pain is not better than the experience of pleasure, again from experience living.

Thinking in that manner, a person who had the "unfortunate" experience of being born as two options (other than suicide): 1: To put the most effort into life to minimize the amount of suffering they experience. or 2: To put the most effort into life to maximize the pleasure they experience. Who can honestly say that the vast majority of living people settle for #1? No, most people actively pursue things to make them happy, not just to be rid of suffering. Although they'd probably settle for a life absent of suffering, if they were given a choice between "total absence of suffering as well as pleasure" and "presence of suffering but also presence of pleasure," I would wager most people would pick the latter. I know I would.

2:  Understandable and I don't think I can rebut. From my perspective, however, I would choose the former, the total absence of pleasure and suffering—but, hey, I have depression. 

1: Well at least there's common ground: it's relative, what people would choose. For someone who has more suffering than pleasure, they'd just give anything to take it away. For someone who has a balance of both, they'd do anything to get more pleasure. But that relies on lived experiences. What's the default for a potential future person?

2: Quite true. That was one reason as to why I could not believe that giving birth was a universal moral wrong. Some things are relative. The default for the potential person may be dependent on the mother. Life can get better for some and there is the potential for pleasure. The mother most likely gives birth to the potential in hopes of a better or equivalent life to hers. I think some mothers are reluctant to give birth when in abysmal situations. In some stories pregnancies end in abortion because it would lead to a more unpleasant life for either or both lives.  From the perspective of the unborn, well, that would be interesting.

1: The last part is what I mean, what would the unborn say if they could say it. And here's a better question: is it bad to say "this is all relative and the antinatalist/natalist war is just a battle of opinions"?

2: Well, all would be conjecture if we were to guess the opinion of the unborn. If the unborn was able to know of what life it was to have and be able to tell us, I would assume that its statement would depend on the life the unborn would be born into. Those with a sufficient life would like to be born. Is it bad? I'd say not. It is a bit of a battle of opinions. It is all relative. 

1: Hm, that answer doesn't really satisfy me, if only because I don't believe that so many people could dedicate themselves to a philosophy that really just comes down to a matter of opinion, and not of any kind of solid foundation. Heh, come to think of it, a lot of people do that, don't they?

2: Yeah, not very satisfying indeed. And yeah, it does seem like a lot of people do that. A solid foundation may be wanted for but one rarely is obtained. We should do this more often.

1: I wish I could, but I've become too salty too fast. Most philosophy that people talk about nowadays is boring and stupid. Examples of which would be nihilism, antinatalism, solipsism, etc.

2: Don't get me started with solipsism. Nihilism and solipsism are too popular; I haven't seen too much antinatalism. And you're probably salty due to your fishing hobby.

1: Hah! One thing I don't get about antinatalists is that they don't seem to advocate murder or suicide. Like they don't actively tell natalists to kill themselves, and they don't try to kill off large amounts of people if given the opportunity. Wouldn't the views of antinatalism necessarily entail that you do as much as you can to reduce the number of potential people from coming into the world to experience suffering?

2: That would be too much work and entail too much suffering, I'd suppose. Instead, they just seem to advocate not giving birth. The living, well, they are already here and they/we may as well do something with this life.

1: But what about the risk they pose: they could produce more people to suffer. One healthy woman can produce a dozen kids if she wants, or on average about 2. Wouldn't killing her and causing her suffering be good because it ends the potential suffering of 2 more people, and also ends her suffering?

2: A movement of thought would not survive too long if that is what they would do. By definition, the antinatalist is anti-birth and not anti-life, in a sense. They do not want to end a life that is already living but, rather, end a life from becoming. 

1: So, hypothetical scenario, there are 51% antinatalists and 49% natalists on the planet. The 51% are armed, and all things equal, they could kill the rest of humanity if they so chose, and then kill themselves. Would they do it?

2: Perhaps some would argue so. But, then again, that would entail a lot of further suffering and unpleasentness. Instead, those 51% would not give birth and the natalists would then continue living. 

1: So how exactly do they plan on winning? If they're willing to prolong generations upon generations of suffering because they don't want to actively just end it all in a matter of a few years, what exactly do they think they can do? Just convince people not to have children? Doesn't not having children prolong their own suffering, since many people rely on the next generation to take care of them?

2: Yea, just convince others to not have children. One would think they do not need another child to take care of them. Or, perhaps, the antinatalist is just a holier-than-thou and laughs at the amoral peoples. 

1: Pfft, I think it's pretty ubiquitous or societies to understand that they need a new generation to take care of the old. Imagine the suffering that would ensue for our older generation in America if they couldn't get disability/social security/retirement because no new generations are paying taxes.

2: If it results in no one continuing to give birth, then perhaps such is worth it, to not have children and suffer before death. A lot of suffering would happen if the older generation could not get disability/social security/ retirement.  So, I suppose they would justify it.

1: But then it becomes a question of "at what point can you cause suffering to end suffering" and it begs the question: if you're willing to let millions of people suffer from a lack of resources by allowing the younger population to never exist, why wouldn't you just kill them instead? It'd be quicker and would involve less suffering.

2: To know, I think we would have to ask a real antinatalist. I can not quite conceive an answer.  The suffering of the millions from not giving birth is due to one's choice. So, it can be seen as a long and drawn out suicide instead of mass murder. 

1: At which point, they'd be conceding that they value freedom of choice; and at that point I'd challenge them on imposing their view of life's worth on people who have not had the opportunity to choose whether life or death is better for themselves.

2: The opinion of the unborn is not in the antinatalist's equation, I suppose.  Life is full of suffering, so do not let one be born. "We're doing them a favor"

1: But are they? It would be the potential future person's free will to decide whether or not it's really better to not live than to live.

2: True, but disregard that. They are not living yet.

1: So because they can't express their opinion, we can decide it for them? On that same note, I can easily say that my opinion is that their life will be full of pleasure, and so it is on their behalf that I'm bringing them into the world: so they can experience that. And that they will enjoy that decision having been made.

2: And it would seem we went full circle. Here, our difference of opinion is apparent. For the antinatalist, absence of pleasure and pain is best. Somewhat like an optimist vs pessimist looking at a half-glass of water.

1: Well when you put it like that, "This is stupid."

2: [laugh] Yes. To our benefit, antinatalism is not too popular.

1: Yeah,

Art: John Maler Collier (1850 - 1934) of the Priestess of Delphi (1891).