There is nothing that warrants anything in this world. Being born is not something we ask for nor something we can reject due to not existing before the point of our own nascent being.

Some argue that life is full of suffering and therefore humans are not exactly enjoying life having to constantly strive to survive from moment to moment or jumping from goal to goal endlessly until oblivion overtakes them.

Such arguments for antinatalism fall short for too many simplistic reasons to list here. But then how can an argument for antinatalism be made?

Antinatalism is the view that procreation is a negative thing overall and therefore wrong. The first point falls down very, very quickly and is more or less the conclusion rather than the spring board to launch an appeal for antinatalism (this is the commonest flaw espoused by antinatalists). The issue of the ‘morality’ of procreating is where we need to begin to set up a reasonable position.

There is good evidence that helps us to see for many generations procreation was often a matter of insurance. The elderly would rely on their children and children’s children to provide for them when age set in. Even the younger adults would require children to help them tend to daily tasks and even acquire money. The obvious morality of this is a test to hold up to modern life. In the modern world such practices and traditions have faded and people have began to reduce the number of offspring they would produce, due to better healthcare amongst other things, and so the question remains ‘what use are children?’ That is what use are they to wealthy individuals as previously having children was all about a form of continuing the family tradition or, more likely, producing a workforce to help the family survive.

The simplest and most common drives of all animals revolve around two basic principles (1) to sustain themselves and (2) to reproduce. These are quite different drives because the first is an absolute requirement to keep living whilst the second is not essential, to the individual, to keep living. Herein lies the crux of the antinatalist argument. Procreation is not necessary for the individual but sustenance certainly is. There is no modern world reason to produce offspring for the means of sustaining an individual as there was in the past. What is more this is a relatively recent occurrence and so we are faced with the question of what reason we have for procreating now and whether or not it is a good thing to do (generally speaking and morally speaking).

Generally speaking having a child neither gives nor takes, but does both. They are a burden for parents yet they also offer up an avenue of self-exploration. Let us assume that the net effect is beneficial for most individuals. Does such a ‘net benefit’ tie into moral ideas? Just because, say, 60% of people benefit there are still 40% who do not. This is not even taking into account the actual good for the children born. If one child in a hundred is born and suffers is that okay if the rest do not? This is also a common argument from the antinatalist and it is at fault too. The issue is not about measuring and weighing lives against lives nor imagined rights against imagined wrongs. This can be seen by reversing the hypothetical to one child in a hundred not suffering whilst all the others do. Is one reality more moral than another? You might jump up and shout ‘of course!’ … but wait! Do not jump too quickly. If one reality is one reality (which reality is) then comparisons between ‘different realities’ is just a mirage. Here we begin to unearth the antinatalist view. The view is quite simple and yet quite hard to grasp and feel comfortable about. Our moral judgement is based on the only reality we know superimposed over some other imagined reality. Yet, we rely from day-to-day on a myriad of probable future realities and instil in ourselves, subtly or in a more pronounced fashion, a cleaving to hypothetical tracks. Our ‘morality’ is not fashioned from the reality we live in but rather fashioned from ideas of other possible realities we can never live in. Our morality is essentially a fantasy world.

Is having children a question of ‘morals,’ ‘ethics’ or something else?

It is easy enough to understand that a personal ‘moral’ is tied into a social ‘ethic’. We are social creatures and so necessarily adhere to some societal norms. To establish an argument from the perspective of antinatalism I see no way that meta ethics can be simply ignored. The very meaning of what ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ are needs to be addressed. These are two particularly terms that are often confused by using them interchangeably. In the area of ‘ethics’ a general overview is cast and something akin to a ‘ruleset’ is used to guide social interactions. In terms of what is or is not ‘ethical’ we need a baseline guide to offer up some rough system of values. Taking the previously mentioned hypotheticals of one child in a hundred suffering or one child in one hundred NOT suffering I think we can appeal strongly to the later being ‘better’. This is because we actually ‘value’ life and generally state that ‘living’ is not exactly the worst thing ever merely the only thing.

Why value life? This question is as relevant as asking ‘why value values?’ The question effectively pretends to ignore the the answer the very question lays bare. That is that what is ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ is not known beyond living. To question anything is to bring ‘value’ into the picture. To question anything is to be. The antinatalist position cannot question the value of life, but it most certainly can question the means by which life can be valued, should be valued and has been valued. It from this point on that the antinatalist view actually reveals itself as antinatalism of two distinct forms (1) Antinatalism as viewing having children as ‘morally wrong’ or (2) Antinatalism as viewing having children as ‘unethical’. A rational antinatalist simply cannot hold both positions. This is also how arguments against a certain antinatalist view fall short too.

So antinatalism has an argument from two differing perspectives. That of the questioning against societal norms regarding having children and questioning against personal morals regarding having children. Embedded in this problem is the definition of ‘ethics’ versus ‘morality’. They are clearly linked and it is here that an antinatalist position can seem nonsensical when it flips across the links of this chain on the whim and direction of the argument at hand. In short an antinatalist argument has to remain as an argument against ‘ethics’ or an argument against ‘morality’. The quest is then one of meta ethics and setting out what is meant by each term and how they differ in the scope of the antinatalist view.

The Ethical position is that what the individual deems as moral is not necessarily Ethical. The broader implication for society being that having children is detrimental somehow. Just because we agree with societal ‘norms’ does not necessarily mean we believe in them blindly. It is fair to see that one can hold a well thought out individualistic view regarding this topic that aligns with the Ethics of the group.

The Moral position is that what society deems as the ‘norm’ is not necessarily beneficial for an individual’s moral perspective. Just because one may believe that having children is not immoral this view may just be a repercussion of societal ethics overpowering the individual viewpoint - one can believe in something simply by never bringing it into question.

You may be asking how this is in any way an argument for antinatalism? The point here is that antinatalism is a strong signal marking the obscurity of moral and ethical thought. It points us directly to the meta ethics of how we regard morals and ethics. It is also a topic that focuses on something we call ‘suffering’. To return to the hypotheticals regarding one in a hundred suffering or not suffering … when it comes to Morality it is a reasonably strong idea to view the suffering of one as meaningful as the suffering of many. On the flip side, when it comes to what is Ethical the societal picture has a stronger presence in the frame, and thus it is reasonable to decide that the number of people suffering is significant - as ‘life’ is the primary medium of value being the very vessel of ‘value’. For arguments against antinatalism the idea of ‘lesser’ degrees of suffering (less people leading a life of pain and hell) makes little to no sense when faced up against Morality because one person’s hell is still an existing kind of hell. If we were to argue that one person having the burden of high level suffering is better than several with lower levels of suffering we simply have no rational reason to stand by such an argument. Whilst, when put forward against the Ethical something else happens …

The shift often made in the Ethical light of antinatalism is one where the article of obscurity shifts from the moral/ethic dynamic to the dynamic of ‘suffering’ and measurements there of. Again, one cannot rationally argue against ‘suffering’ without the meaning of ‘suffering’ being brought under close scrutiny.

So, in summation … the Morality of Antinatalism is a position that shifts us more towards the meta ethics of what it is we mean by ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ and has less concern for measurements of ‘suffering’. The Ethics of Antinatalism is a position that is expounded by the Morality of Antinatalism yet lives beyond it firmly held by the scope of what ‘suffering’ is rather than whitewashing ‘suffering’ as an all or nothing notion (a common theme in Moralistic thought).

So why should we not have children? I can hear you asking again and again …

A) To have children is a guarantee of said ‘suffering’ coming into the world in some form or another. From a Moral perspective if one wishes to end suffering then this is an even better solution … to not BEGIN any suffering in the first place.

B) From an Ethical perspective the chances of ‘suffering’ increasing (the number of people suffering not merely the proportion) will increase too. Stemming population growth can drastically reduce numbers even if the proportional suffering is higher.

C) There is no ‘choice’ when it comes to our coming to exist. Suffering is not really an option in life either, it is a guarantee in fact. Our very orientation in this existential conscious state is performed through the Art of Suffering.

D) The Art of Suffering is to absorb ‘suffering’ with ‘non-suffering’. We must suffer knowing that somewhere someone is not ‘suffering’ yet know that they have or will soon enough.


Conclusions

My argument for Antinatalism is actually for the thought experiment of Antinatalism as a means of exploring more readily the main problems in meta ethics and in the entire field of “Ethics” at large. I hope I have presented Antinatalism as a rather unique avenue into the underlying meta ethical problem of distinguishing the type of arguments presented in Ethics and how they can be viewed, misconstrued and misunderstood.

I will leave with a thought … if the aim was for everyone to take on an Antinatalist attitude eventually leading to the end of the human race then can we take on such a task if we believed it to cause untold suffering for several generations to come?

Here the Ethical Antinatalist may happily exclaim that it is all good that suffering be heaped upon suffering in order to end suffering completely, yet the Moral Antinatalist would shudder at such an idea. Mark the difference when an argument for Antinatalism is being put forward and pay close attention.

In evolutionary terms and social development, the basic ‘need’ for children has fallen off as wealth and health have taken centre stage. In the past a family would simply follow the age old pattern of creating offspring to care for them and build upon the future. As time has wore on this ‘need’ has been uncovered as something selfish and/or a repercussion of basic biological functioning. Today though we are, overall, far less tied to our biological functions having created means to manage them and having the wealth and health to bring less children into the world that are generally healthier and more and more dependent rather than being vehicles for their parents longevity. This is the Ethical position for Antinatalism.

The Moralistic Antinatalism has zero concern for biological functions or for evolutionary mechanisms. ‘Suffering’ is its anchor and for this reason it is unhelpful to dislodge the anchor because there is nothing left to argue about. The Moral position does not question that ‘suffering’ is bad nor does it question the degrees of ‘suffering’. Suffering for the Moralistic Antinatalist is the enemy regarded with equal ire in all its forms.

The Antinatalist Trolly

We all know the trolley problem. So let us take the hypothetical to the Moral and the Ethcial Antinatalist where ‘suffering’ is the primary concern.

M) Do nothing, do something. It does not matter as ‘suffering’ is ever present.

E) One person dying is one less suffering and their friends and family suffering. Five people dying is five less suffering and their friends and families suffering. It does not matter if one or five die if others will mourn their loss and continue the cycle of suffering.

Freedom is a hell the fools beg for. The shackles of life ARE Life because they are our grounding. The point from which we can touch the universe. ‘Freedom from’ is annihilation. I guess we must all dabble in the art of annihilation though, life is what it is, and it IS.