It could, but once again, looking at an incomplete picture is dangerous. There is a potent joy hidden beneath that sacrifice, and I don't think it's trivial. Nor is such a great sacrifice always necessary, of course. Things can also be a win-win scenario, wherein people contribute towards each other's well-being. — DA671

@Agent Smith, @Bartricks, and the other anti-natalists are misfits. They were never going to have children with or without the justifications provided by philosophy. Anti-natalism is just the rationalization that people who don't belong use to dignify their misanthropy.

Deciding not to have children is fine. My brother and daughter both decided early that they weren't interested. They aren't anti-natalists. They don't need bullshit "ethics" to justify their personal decisions.

I don't think that all of these individuals are misanthropic. They could indeed be driven by a strong sense of compassion for others. I would merely say that empathy and understanding can also extend to the positive aspects of life. People on our side might also rationalise without thinking about these issues in a thorough manner, which is something I hope will change for the better, since I do believe that existence can most certainly be justified. I am still grateful to everybody I've interacted for providing me with thought-provoking ideas to ponder over. I obviously have much to learn.

Yeah, I agree that people should not be pressurised to have children, and I think that doing so can often lead to more harm than good. Hope you have a great day!

I don't think that all of these individuals are misanthropic. They could indeed be driven by a strong sense of compassion for others. I would merely say that empathy and understanding can also extend to the positive aspects of life. People on our side might also rationalise without thinking about these issues in a thorough manner, which is something I hope will change for the better, since I do believe that existence can most certainly be justified. I am still grateful to everybody I've interacted for providing me with thought-provoking ideas to ponder over. I obviously have much to learn. — DA671

You're much too reasonable. What are you doing on a philosophy forum?

There are people far wiser than me out there. I just hope I can gain a more nuanced understanding of their views and mould my own beliefs in a more rational manner. Thank you for your exceedingly kind words, but as I said before, I desire to acquire a more refined perspective.

Misfits? If to care about people suffering, horribly some times, makes one a misfit, I'd gladly be one! Who wants to be a part of a group that turns a blind eye to the real and abject misery that, perforce, must be mentioned in the defintion of the world as we know it.

Misfits? If to care about people suffering, horribly some times, makes one a misfit, I'd gladly be one! Who wants to be a part of a group that turns a blind eye to the real and abject misery that, perforce, must be mentioned in the defintion of the world as we know it. — Agent Smith

Baloney. Just because you're too lazy, or socially inept, or frightened, or ugly to have children, that doesn't make you a person of integrity.

Baloney. Just because you're too lazy, or socially inept, or frightened, or ugly to have children, that doesn't make you a person of integrity. — T Clark

:lol:

You've got me!

and the other anti-natalists are misfits. They were never going to have children with or without the justifications provided by philosophy. Anti-natalism is just the rationalization that people who don't belong use to dignify their misanthropy. — T Clark

The female species loves me. I'm a good-looking guy. Talkative body. Burning brains. The mere thought of putting children in this world is a frightening one. Poor children! No normal future ahead of them. Prone to depression and nuclear destruction. Forced to play the materialistic capitalistic game. I have all it takes to procreate beautiful children (some girls told me they never saw a more good looking bloke, "le mec plus beau du monde"...), provided with the brains to turn all they touch into gold. But I refuse...

But I refuse... — Dijkgraf

So... send us a picture and let us decide.

https://gurushots.com/photo/da4141cfb9957d910dacfff7d44e5d20

https://gurushots.com/photo/21f9290d46c26bba1e8dbc4caf54b2a0

OMG I've had this startling revelation, everyone! Death is "harmful"!

The argument I made is simple: death is a harm of such gravity that it plausibly outweighs all the goods a life contains. It isn't hard to understand.

It is clear that it is a harm, for our reason tells us to avoid it at almost all costs.

And our reason tells us to avoid it even if our lives are a little miserable. So, it seems that 80 years of moderate misery is better than death. And that goes for a life of 150 years of moderate misery, and 500 years and so on. Our reason tells us to stay here, in this realm, for as long as we possibly can, save agony. That is, it tells us that it is in our interests to stay here, in this realm, forever, if possible, so long as one's life is not outright terrible.

That's not controversial. Scenarios under which it is plausible we might have reason to kill ourselves or another are invariably terrible, extreme circumstances, in which a person is suffering agony and loss of dignity, or in which one person's continued living will visit suffering and agony or death on others.

So, it is uncontroversial that our reason tells us to stay here - to avoid death - extreme and very taxing circumstances aside.

Only an idiot would think that implies death is great - a benefit, a door to a better place. I mean, that makes no sense at all - that's not what reason is implying. And only an idiot would think this implies death is nothing, no harm at all. Again, even a 7 year old can see how silly a conclusion that would be. No, the implication - very powerful implication, so powerful it is the only sensible one, other things being equal - is that death is a portal to a terrible place. Death takes one to a life worse than this one - worse, that is, unless you're in absolute agony with no prospect of it ending so long as one remains here.

Now, that implication - which is not reasonably deniable - establishes the truth of antinatalism. For only some kind of psycho would now think it is morally ok to bring others into our predicament. Even those who think antinatalism is false agree that it would be wrong to bring into existence a person whose life would be characterized by great agony. And that does not change if, within that person's life of agony, there is a weekend of happiness. Well, that is our situation: we are, if we are lucky, enjoying the weekend of happiness.

The female species loves me. I'm a good-looking guy. Talkative body. Burning brains. The mere thought of putting children in this world is a frightening one. Poor children! No normal future ahead of them. Prone to depression and nuclear destruction. Forced to play the materialistic capitalistic game. I have all it takes to procreate beautiful children (some girls told me they never saw a more good looking bloke, "le mec plus beau du monde"...), provided with the brains to turn all they touch into gold. But I refuse... — Dijkgraf

I'll give you a more serious response this time.

As I wrote previously, no one needs a reason not to have children. It's their choice. The choice you've made is your choice. So far, all you discussed is the specific choice you've made and the reasons for it. You haven't turned it into moral philosophy and you haven't tried to apply that moral philosophy to how other people should be obligated to behave.

So that's my question. Do you believe that other people have a moral obligation not to have children? If you answer "no," you're not an anti-natalist. You're just a guy who doesn't want to have children.

I'm a chicken!

The modern world is not suited for new chickens. I think all chickens should take that into consideration. One egg to breed max! Until people are re-educated.

I'm a chicken!

The modern world is not suited for new chickens. I think all chickens should take that into consideration. One egg to breed max! Until people are re-educated. — Dijkgraf

That's a reasonable position, although it didn't work so well for the Chinese.

The argument I made is simple: death is a harm of such gravity that it plausibly outweighs all the goods a life contains. It isn't hard to understand. — Bartricks

I understand the point you are making, but your argument doesn't resonate with me. Part of my role involves working in the area of suicide prevention, to provide crisis intervention to people who what to kill themselves. Despite the strong taboos of religions and culture, suicidality is common and not often the result of 'agony'. Generally it is situational and people just don't have the desire to continue because they find life overwhelming emotionally. We understand that around 15% of people consider suicide at some point.

Many people don't want to live. The offical figures for suicide are alway under. For every successful attempt there are probably 5 or 6 who were unsuccessful. And many suicides are recorded as accidents or misadventures. I would add to this all those folk who partake in high risk activities that have a high chance of killing them - substance use, smoking, 'lifestyle' choices. The risk of death, as an oncologist tells us, is generally not enough of a disincentive for certain behaviours.

So, it seems that 80 years of moderate misery is better than death. And that goes for a life of 150 years of moderate misery, and 500 years and so on. Our reason tells us to stay here, in this realm, for as long as we possibly can, save agony. That is, it tells us that it is in our interests to stay here, in this realm, forever, if possible, so long as one's life is not outright terrible. — Bartricks

I don't read any conclusions like this from behaviour. I also think 'reason' and behaviour don't always have a connection. Emotion would seem to me to be a bigger influence. I would also argue that from an evolutionary standpoint (and I am not a social Darwinist) that species are hard wired for survival. So there's that.

Agent Smith, Bartricks, and the other anti-natalists are misfits. They were never going to have children with or without the justifications provided by philosophy. Anti-natalism is just the rationalization that people who don't belong use to dignify their misanthropy. — T Clark

You should focus on arguments, not arguers. But I can assure you that I haven't procreated because it is dumb and immoral - so i haven't procreated on the basis of the arguments (it's something I tend to do - I tend to think before i make life-changing decisions...try it). But as we're now assessing individuals not arguments, I suspect the only reason you're convinced antinatalism is false is because you've bred. Note too, I can breed if I want to, whereas you can't undo your breeding choice. So you've got far more of a vested interest in antinatalism being false than I have in it being true. Thus, if we're basing our assessment of views on the motives and vested interests of the arguers - which is fallacious, but seems to be how you do things - then you're the one with the false view. You argue fallaciously, but even by your own fallacious standards your view comes out false! Good job.

Anyway, back to the actual case I made in the OP (which is what you ought to be assessing).

We have reason to avoid death under most circumstances. That's one of my premises and it is not remotely controversial. Anyone denying it owes an argument, and it'd better be a really good one.

The reason we have reason to avoid death under most circumstances is instrumental: it harms us. You have reason not to punch yourself in the face - why? Because it'll harm you to do that. You have reason to avoid death - why? Because it'll harm you.

That is slightly - slightly - more controversial, as it is in principle possible for us to have reason to avoid death without it being harmful to us. Nevertheless, the harmfulness of death seems both itself to be self-evident to reason and to be the best explanation of why we have reason to avoid it under most circumstances. Again, anyone disputing this premise would need to provide a powerful argument in defence of their rejection.

So, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that death harms us. But by how much? Well, it would seem a huge amount. For we seem to have reason to avoid death even if our lives here promise to be mildly miserable. At no point in the mildly miserable life does one have reason to seek death. Extreme misery - perhaps. Agony, perhaps. But killing oneself because one's life is mildly miserable seems irrational.

If the harm of death is so great that a mildly miserable life here of any length is preferable, then the harm of death must be colossal and, it would seem, it must transform our condition for the worse (otherwise there would come a point where the length of the mildly miserable life would make a difference to the rationality of suicide - which intuitively it does not).

Thus, death is a huge harm, and the harm in question involves one's condition changing for the worse. Death is, like I say, a portal to hell. That's what our reason is telling us, if we listen to it carefully and stop engaging in wishful thinking.

Now if death is a portal to hell, then we're all going to hell. Anyone here is going to hell. If that is our predicament, then anyone of moral sensibility will draw the same conclusion: it is wrong to make it anyone else's predicament as well; wrong, in other words, to bring anyone else here.

Part of my role involves working in the area of suicide prevention — Tom Storm

If our deaths take us to hell - as the evidence powerfully implies - wouldn't that realization prevent many from committing suicide?

Despite the strong taboos of religions and culture, suicidality is common and not often the result of 'agony'. Generally it is situational and people just don't have the desire to continue because they find life overwhelming emotionally. We understand that around 15% of people consider suicide at some point. — Tom Storm

My claim is about the rationality of avoiding death, not about what people actually do or think. Lots of people think gambling on slot machines is a good idea - that doesn't mean it is.

Now presumably you think that these people - the ones who are not in agony with no prospect of it ending, but are just bored and what a change of scene - do not, in fact, have reason to kill themselves? I mean, why else are you trying to prevent them from doing it? Surely your very job presupposes the truth of what I am saying, namely that, in the main, killing oneself is irrational and thus those who are inclined to do so need help and to be diverted from making an irrational and very harmful choice?

Many people don't want to live. The offical figures for suicide are alway under. — Tom Storm

Again, I don't see how this challenges anything I have said. First, simply not wanting to live is not sufficient, is it, to make it rational to kill oneself? Someone who didn't want to live because they believe that there is a better place just the other side of death is, surely, someone you'd consider had reason 'not' to kill themselves.

Look, I am not making any claims about how miserable or happy anyone actually is. My claim is that we have reason to avoid death unless our lives have become lives of unending agony. That's not a claim about how many people want to die or do not - it is not an empirical claim. I am not claiming anything about how miserable or happy any actual person is. I am making a normative claim - a claim about what we have reason to do or not do. And it is true, is it not? LIke I say, if you work in suicide prevention, doesn't your job presuppose that what I am saying is true? Otherwise, why are you trying to prevent people from doing it? The job presupposes that it is irrational in the main, surely?

You should focus on arguments, not arguers. — Bartricks

Agreed, but you and @Agent Smith started it.

bringing people into our situation would be a very evil thing to do. — Bartricks

evilly self-absorbed inconsiderate person — Bartricks

It's evil to have children! — Agent Smith

That's a reasonable position, although it didn't work so well for the Chinese. — T Clark

The Chinese changed it to 3. They are stupid. One was better.

Agreed, but you and Agent Smith started it. — T Clark

No, you started it. Rather than address the argument, you decided to engage in some cod psychology.

Note as well, that accusing procreators of being evil is not to focus on the arguer rather than the argument. It is rather what the antinatalist conclusion implies about them. That is not to make things personal: it is just a conclusion of an argument.

If you address the argument I presented for antinatalism, then I will address your objections to it. But note, the argument implies that anyone who has voluntarily procreated is a wicked person. If you think that conclusion is false, then address the argument.

You won't, of course. For so far all you have done is insist - on the basis of no argument that I can discern - that we do not have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances. Make a case for that - that is, make an argument that has that as a conclusion that follows logically from some premises, and then I can inspect those premises and see if they have any self-evidence to them at all.

The Chinese changed it to 3. They are stupid. One was better. — Dijkgraf

But they were aborting the girls so they could have sons. Leaders also figured out that they would run out of people to participate in the economy and China would plunge into a bottomless depression. There's a good chance they're right. Then we'll see some real misery.

Note as well, that accusing procreators of being evil is not to focus on the arguer rather than the argument. It is rather what the antinatalist conclusion implies about them. — Bartricks

evilly self-absorbed inconsiderate person — Bartricks

Again, I refer you to my earlier comment. Comprehension skills: D.

Address the argument that leads to that conclusion. Note, that a conclusion describes qualities that you find you yourself possess, does not make the argument ad hominem. Rejecting the conclusion because you dislike the arguer, however, is ad hominem.

So, once again, turn the old meat walnut on and try and come up with a cogent criticism of the argument in the OP.

So, once again, turn the old meat walnut on and try and come up with a cogent criticism of the argument in the OP. — Bartricks

Been there, done that, although you're unwilling to acknowledge it. When your ideas get knocked down, you do one of two things 1) just keep repeating your argument as if saying it over and over again makes it right or 2) change your argument and pretend that you didn't. Oh, wait, there's a third 3) Insult people.

But they were aborting the girls so they could have sons. Leaders also figured out that they would run out of people to participate in the economy and China would plunge into a bottomless depression. There's a good chance they're right. Then we'll see some real misery. — T Clark

Abortion should be forbidden then. Economy is of no importance whatsoever.

No, present an argument - say which claim you dispute and why. Don't do that thing that everyone does, which is to think that if they just 'say' that they disagree with a premise, that constitutes a refutation of the argument.

Note what I did in the OP - I made a case. I showed how an interesting conclusion follows from some premises that seem, on the face of it, true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Try and do the same. That is, don't just blurt "I don't agree with that!" or 'that's not true!!!!' and think that by itself constitutes a refutation. Argue. Try and show how the negation of one of my premises follows from other premises, more plausible than any of mine.

This thread is about a particular argument for antinatalism, not about antinatalism broadly construed (there are all manner of arguments for antinatalism, some good - mine - some bad - such as Benatar's).

So, in a rather pointless attempt to encourage focus, here's my argument. broken into three syllogisms:

Argument 1:

1. If we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances, including circumstances in which our lives are already sub optimal in terms of their happiness to misery balance (up to a certain limit), the best explanation of this is that death harms us and harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse.
2. We have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances etc.
3. Therefore, death harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse

Argument 2:

1. If our deaths permanently alter our condition for the worse, then all of our lives are bad overall and cause their subjects far more harm than benefit.
2. Our deaths permanently alter our condition for the worse (from the argument above)
3. Thus all of our lives are bad overall and cause their subjects far more harm than benefit

Argument 3:

1. If our lives are bad overall and cause their subjects far more harm than benefit, then it is immoral to create such lives.
2. Our lives are bad overall and cause their subjects far more harm than benefit
3. Therefore, it is immoral to create such lives.

Now, I do not think a reasonable doubt can be had about any of the premises of those arguments. The only premise I think a slither of a doubt can be had about is premise 1 of argument 1. As I have said before, it does not follow from us having reason not to x, that xing will harm us. And so there's scope to argue that although we do indeed have reason to avoid death under almost all circumstances, the reason in question is to do with some other consideration apart from harm.

But what other consideration would it be? Is it immoral for us to kill ourselves, for instance, and immoral for reasons unrelated to harm? Well, perhaps, but intuitively it does not seem immoral so much as irrational. Plus in general we do not have moral obligations to ourselves. So, insisting that the reason we ought to avoid death is a moral reason looks ad hoc.

Perhaps death is not harmful at all and thus the reason must be generated by some other consideration, even if we can't identify what consideration it is. There's a famous case for thinking death might be harmless that was first made by Epicurus. Epicurus argued that death can't harm us, for we don't exist at the time.

However, although Epicurus is surely right that you need to exist in order to be harmed, he just assumes that death ends our existence. Yet we seem to have good reason to think it doesn't, precisely because we seem to have reason to avoid it. Why would we have reason to avoid something harmless? There could be a reason, of course, but it would be question begging just to assume there is. Absent actual evidence that we have reason to avoid death due to some consideration unrelated to harm, the default is that we have reason to avoid death due to its harmfulness. And that, combined with Epicurus's plausible assumption that one needs to exist in order to be harmed, simply gets us to the conclusion that death does not end our existence. It does not, in other words, raise any kind of reasonable doubt about premise 1.

So, there you go - three arguments, all the premises of which seem true beyond a reasonable doubt, and that entail that antinatalism is true.

Now presumably you think that these people - the ones who are not in agony with no prospect of it ending, but are just bored and what a change of scene - do not, in fact, have reason to kill themselves? — Bartricks

They are not bored. They are dealing with depression and post-trauma reactions, or an overwhelming situational problem - a crisis which temporarily has a detrimental hold on them.

Surely your very job presupposes the truth of what I am saying, namely that, in the main, killing oneself is irrational and thus those who are inclined to do so need help and to be diverted from making an irrational and very harmful choice? — Bartricks

Can't see that. I never use the term irrational since I don't think reason plays all that much of a role in behaviour, or life in general. Sure people have reasons, but that doesn't imply a measured or 'reasoned' world view. People tend to be reactive in my experience. And all of us love our post hoc rationalisations.

My role in these cases is to prevent unnecessary death. It is not tied to any presuppositions other than life is preferable to death. A view an atheist might hold on the basis that the flourishing of conscious creatures is a useful guiding principle for actions in the world.

I choose to assist people because it pleases me emotionally - it seems like the right thing to do for me. It is not tied to a consciously held foundational narrative or any reasoned system. I also know that people generally choose suicide as a reaction to problems which can be overcome. Those who survive ususally say something like - "I couldn't see any solutions and didn't think I would be happy again, that's why I wanted to die. I'm so glad I didn't do it.' People sometimes require a reboot.

Anyway, despite all this stuff the most I can commit to is that life is preferable to death. If people really want to die (and many do) they don't generally seek help from services. They, to quote the execrable Nike, just do it.

Enjoy the argument, I'm out. I'm pretty sure I don't understand your thinking and it shouldn't matter to you or me that I don't. Cheers - TS

@Bartricks

It's not controversial that we are evolutionarily hardwired to avoid death.

This is why it seems self-evidently reasonable to avoid it.