Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion Counter argument for antinatalism

gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Life is but a dream
-
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
2,231
Does anyone here have any good counter arguments for antinatalism? I believe it to be pretty logically sound and have yet to find any sufficient arguments against it. Procreation is selfish and by not having kids you are preventing a lifetime of suffering. Life for most is a terrible experience and by not having children you’re preventing someone from ever having to deal with the pain and anguish associated with living.
 
Antinatalism implies morals, which is already reaching cope territory. But even then, what do you mean by suffering? Suffering is just a chemical reaction in the brain necessary for survival, so reducing "suffering" doesnt really mean anything. By giving life you also increase happiness and joy in the world anyway, not just suffering
 
Antinatalism implies morals, which is already reaching cope territory. But even then, what do you mean by suffering?
By suffering I mean anything that causes a sentient being to feel pain, whether it be physical or mental/emotional.

Suffering is just a chemical reaction in , so reducing "suffering" doesnt really mean anything.
Do you like feeling pain? What's stoping you from harming yourself right now and why?
By giving life you also increase happiness and joy in the world anyway, not just suffering
To many people the happiness and joy isn't worth the suffering.
 
Well there is the argument that value is subjectively defined, and there is nothing to compel us what to do or not do. I don't really buy this argument though, because we make value judgements all the time even while knowing that we'll never have all the information, and knowing that our powers of reasoning are limited. Objectivity being impossible doesn't stop people from defining value, so why should we?

But beyond that, I don't think that antinatalism will ever resolve the problem which it presents. The vast majority of humans will never accept antinatalism, and as a result the entire manner of thinking could be seen as DNA wiping out it's disordered elements. So advocacy might well further the propagation of humans/biological life, as opposed to helping to end it. Really the only solution would be continued human existence until someone develops an adequate force multiplier. But what good does this speculating do now?

I agree that coming into existence is a harm, I would say that it can only ever be negative value (for a variety of reasons which are way beyond the scope of this thread), but the idea that you'll ever convince most people to agree with you seems not only silly to me, but outright counterproductive towards the intended goal.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that antinatalism will ever resolve the problem which it presents. The vast majority of humans will never accept antinatalism, and as a result the entire manner of thinking could be seen as DNA wiping out it's disordered elements. So advocacy might well further the propagation of humans/biological life, as opposed to helping to end it. Really the only solution would be continued human existence until someone develops and adequate force multiplier. But what good does this speculating do now?

I agree that coming into existence is a harm, I would say that it can only ever be negative value (for a variety of reasons which are way beyond the scope of this thread), but the idea that you'll ever convince most people to agree with you seems not only silly to me, but outright counterproductive towards the intended goal.
We both know that humans are going to face extinction. Antinatalism simply offers a less painful road to travel. It also explains why existence is a harm, which I think is important to those who value reason.
 
We both know that humans are going to face extinction. Antinatalism simply offers a less painful road to travel. It also explains why existence is a harm, which I think is important to those who value reason.
Pretty much answered why antinatalism will not be accepted by the majority. Humans operate solely on the animal instincts and what is hardwired in their behavior is the will to procreate. No matter how much people try to glamorize life, set the artificial rules for themselves in form of values, in the end the goal of life is to find a partner, reproduce and then make room for a new generation. It's sort of perpetuum mobile, or rather the never ending cycle of life and death. There is no less painful way of extinction as antinatalistic one would mean that at some point elderly would not be able to be cared for, that is of course provided that majority of the human population would accept the antinatalistic approach.

But beyond that, I don't think that antinatalism will ever resolve the problem which it presents. The vast majority of humans will never accept antinatalism, and as a result the entire manner of thinking could be seen as DNA wiping out it's disordered elements. So advocacy might well further the propagation of humans/biological life, as opposed to helping to end it. Really the only solution would be continued human existence until someone develops an adequate force multiplier. But what good does this speculating do now?
False excessive humanism is the issue. Even if only perfect individuals were allowed to procreate there could still be a possibility of a less fortunate gene recombination or even expression of recessive genes which would result in a birth of an undesirable specimen. Due to concepts that are completely contrary to human nature such as will to preserve every life at every cost this would revert us back to the original problem. Sure there would be less flawed people, but for the unfortunate minority I assume the existence would be even more agonizing that it is for low value society members today.
 
Pretty much answered why antinatalism will not be accepted by the majority. Humans operate solely on the animal instincts and what is hardwired in their behavior is the will to procreate. No matter how much people try to glamorize life, set the artificial rules for themselves in form of values, in the end the goal of life is to find a partner, reproduce and then make room for a new generation. It's sort of perpetuum mobile, or rather the never ending cycle of life and death. There is no less painful way of extinction as antinatalistic one would mean that at some point elderly would not be able to be cared for, that is of course provided that majority of the human population would accept the antinatalistic approach.


False excessive humanism is the issue. Even if only perfect individuals were allowed to procreate there could still be a possibility of a less fortunate gene recombination or even expression of recessive genes which would result in a birth of an undesirable specimen. Due to concepts that are completely contrary to human nature such as will to preserve every life at every cost this would revert us back to the original problem. Sure there would be less flawed people, but for the unfortunate minority I assume the existence would be even more agonizing that it is for low value society members today.
It seems to me that you agree with the Antinatalist position even though it'll never be implemented. That's good enough for me.
 
We both know that humans are going to face extinction. Antinatalism simply offers a less painful road to travel. It also explains why existence is a harm, which I think is important to those who value reason.
What I'm getting at is that if the reason for your antinatalism advocacy comes from a desire to reduce suffering, or to eliminate the very source of problems faced by anyone, then I would argue that in the long-term you might not be reducing suffering at all.

Let me put it another way, what do you suppose will be the result of a group of honest and high empathy people deciding not to procreate? Ironically many of the best people suited to both having and raising children will be actively deciding not to do so. You can't fight a battle against a process in which you play by the rules of said process ensuring that people who disagree with you are selected for (natural selection is a bitch). You may not need to procreate to spread ideas, but your capacity to accept them certainly has genetic components, and remember that spreading the ideas isn't enough anyway since most people will never accept them.

I don't think you will ever be able to convince anything close to a majority of humans to stop procreating. Our bias for existence/experience is too strong, our desire to have children is an entirely selfish one (why would selfish people care), and ultimately we have far too much cognitive bias within us for most people to be capable of identifying or mitigating. On an individual level some people can overcome these barriers, but this isn't a problem capable of being resolved by a few individuals, at least not if the method is to get humans to stop having children.

At best I think trying to convince people is an exercise in futility. Sure I agree with you, but how many share my viewpoint? More importantly, how will you ever get them to do so? You can't get the process to stop of it's own volition, it has to be forcibly turned off.
 
There are none.
 
That most people enjoy life and prefer it over death.

Also, why are pain and suffering objectively bad? I see many people using it as an axiom when it comes down to utilitarianism
 
Last edited:
What I'm getting at is that if the reason for your antinatalism advocacy comes from a desire to reduce suffering, or to eliminate the very source of problems faced by anyone, then I would argue that in the long-term you might not be reducing suffering at all.
I agree, I was simply looking for any good arguments against it since I have yet to find one. Most counter-arguments I find against the position come from a place of emotion. It's a very sensitive topic that many people are afraid to discuss.
You can't get the process to stop of it's own volition, it has to be forcibly turned off.
Oh it will be. No doubt about it.
That most people enjoy life and prefer it over death.
Most people enjoy life because they were biologically programmed to.
Also, why are pain and suffering objectively bad? I see many people using it as an axiom when it comes down to utilitarianism
Pain and suffering aren't objectively bad, but most people would agree that they wouldn't like to experience those feelings.Again, everything comes down to Biology. Also, Antinatalism isn't a utilitarian position.
 
Last edited:
That most people enjoy life and prefer it over death.

Also, why are pain and suffering objectively bad? I see many people using it as an axiom on utilitarianism
Why is pleasure objectively good? What about this life warrants taking an action in the form of procreating to further it, as opposed to doing nothing at all? If we're coming at this from a position of pure neutrality, there is no objective reason to procreate in the first place. Even if you disagree with my understanding of value, it doesn't matter, because I don't even need to try to define and gauge value to prove my point.

The question isn't why should people not procreate, it's why should they procreate. The reasons for taking an action have to be decided first.

People preferring life over death is irrelevant, since there is objective and discernible reason to create life. Whether or not people should die is beyond the topic of this thread.
 
Why is pleasure objectively good? What about this life warrants taking an action in the form of procreating to further it, as opposed to doing nothing at all? If we're coming at this from a position of pure neutrality, there is no objective reason to procreate in the first place. Even if you disagree with my understanding of value, it doesn't matter, because I don't even need to try to define and gauge value to prove my point.

The question isn't why should people not procreate, it's why should they procreate. The reasons for taking an action have to be decided first.

People preferring life over death is irrelevant, since there is objective and discernible reason to create life. Whether or not people should die is beyond the topic of this thread.
I never said it was, I'm not even utilitarian. Though the only reason I can see, is that pleasure makes you, sometimes, keep engaging in experiences that are benefitial/non harmful to your health, the opposite applies to suffering. But when it comes down to unecessary pleasure, I guess it falls in the same category as unecessary suffering and pain, both cannot be objectively good or bad (never saw any argument proving it, I'd be thankful if you could send me one).

Why do they need a reason to do it? As far as I know, there is no objective reason for you to do anything, there is no maxim that says we all should do X or why that X is important. All prescriptions are subjective afterall, so you can't just apply that to procreation.

Of course its relevant, the topic was not discussing the purpose of procreation, but using suffering as an argument against it. That's why I'm saying that suffering cannot be used as an argument against procreation, once most people enjoy life
What do you mean by this?
I guess he meant ''No objective and discernible reason to create life''
 
Last edited:
The real problem is consciousness. No phenomena in this world, biological or otherwise should become self aware. Pain is a part of it but not the whole thing. If the human experience consisted of nothing but endless pleasure it still won't make human existence any more meaningful or invalidate the merits of anti-natalism.
 
What do you mean by this?
Why do they need a reason to do it? As far as I know, there is no objective reason for you to do nothing, there is no maxim that says we all should do X or why that X is important. All prescriptions are subjective afterall, so you can't just apply that to procreation.
I mean that people usually try to get us to prove a negative. There is no objective reason to procreate, and we don't even have to prove why someone shouldn't until people can provide a reason why we should.

What the reason consists of mostly boils down to "because I want to", essentially saying that they can't come up with a better reason to do something than the simple desire to do it. When you understand this, it makes you entirely aware that people are willing to impose all that potential for harm with no better reason that because they want to do so.

It's a process which doesn't need to exist, being perpetuated by people simply because they want to do so, and their desire is a direct result of programming to further the process. It's cyclical, pointless, and we have no objective reason to continue it.
Of course its relevant, the topic was not discussing the purpose of procreation, but using suffering as an argument against it. That's why I'm saying that suffering cannot be used as an argument against procreation, once most people enjoy life
I see, of course you were addressing OP's argument. How can you address an argument which I have yet to make? Jfl, I'm a little tired.

Anyway, you have a point. But what happens when they don't enjoy life? Do you think it's right to knowingly subject someone to a life which they may not want, a life which our instincts usually prevent us from escaping short of very dire circumstances (extreme pain, extreme hopelessness, incoming crisis, etc). I can recognize that for me at least it would be better if I didn't exist, yet right now I can't make myself end it at this very moment. Don't you see how this is troublesome?

A nonexistent person can't be deprived of pleasure, and can't experience pain, so how do you justify bringing people into existence?
The real problem is consciousness. No phenomena in this world, biological or otherwise should become self aware. Pain is a part of it but not the whole thing. If the human experience consisted of nothing but endless pleasure it still won't make human existence any more meaningful or invalidate the merits of anti-natalism.
Zapffe thought the same tbh, I entirely agree with him.
 
Antinatalism, at least as it is often presented, is problematic. Should you have children? No. Is having children among the worst things you can do in your life? Yes.

But there are two considerations here that come to mind. The first is the impracticality of it. Not everyone will accept antinatalism, and this has to be taken into consideration. If those who do not care about ethics are the ones having children, this can lead to problems down the road. In other words, the worst of us would be having the most of us.

The other consideration relates to non-human animals. AN doesn't really account for them. Benatar says his approach does, but it's hard to see how. Regardless, we cannot convince animals to stop breeding. A more invasive technique will have to be used to solve the non-human animal problem. And if only humans leave this hell and leave the rest of the animals to fend for themselves, that is not much of an improvement. Nature is terrible. Efilism addresses this, but there is no actionable plan. Nobody even knows where to start with the efilists' noble goal.

Also, to all those saying value is subjective or whatever, that is not the case. There is no objective morality handed down from the heavens. But your suffering has value. Why? Because when you suffer, you recognize "This is awful and bad and I want it to end". That is the basis of morality - limiting the liability of suffering things.
 
Also, to all those saying value is subjective or whatever, that is not the case. There is no objective morality handed down from the heavens. But your suffering has value. Why? Because when you suffer, you recognize "This is awful and bad and I want it to end". That is the basis of morality - limiting the liability of suffering things.
Morality doesn't exist.
 
Zapffe thought the same tbh, I entirely agree with him.
I like Zapffe. Too bad his main work isn't translated into English. But I think it's a mistake to "entirely agree with him". Consciousness may provide new opportunities for suffering. But the primary problem is sentience. Self-awareness is just icing on the suffering cake.
 
I like Zapffe. Too bad his main work isn't translated into English. But I think it's a mistake to "entirely agree with him". Consciousness may provide new opportunities for suffering. But the primary problem is sentience. Self-awareness is just icing on the suffering cake.
I should've worded my statement better.

I entirely agree with Zapffe's idea that the primary cause of human suffering is our cognition, and there is a lot of evidence for this. We seem to be the only creatures which can suffer simply as a result of understanding our own existence. People engage in a lifelong battle against the pain their intellect causes them. This don't mean that other forms of suffering are unimportant (not at all), or that other animals suffering isn't also a problem. Just because I agree with this specific idea of his doesn't mean that I think that life without humans has any value either, or that it should continue.
 
Morality doesn't exist.
Hmm...depends on what you mean by morality. But sure, I can rephrase. Preventing and ameliorating suffering is the closest thing to a morality, and should be treated as such. The problem comes when you wonder, "How can I/we prevent suffering?"
The best thing to do is to limit having new lives. Preventing births here and there is a fine thing to do, but it doesn't solve the problem of suffering. The best thing to do would be to rid this planet of the awfulness of sentience, of life. How do we do that? I haven't a clue, nor does anyone I'm aware of. The world is a big place and life is unfortunately everywhere. "Just nuke it", as I've seen some suggest elsewhere, wouldn't work even if we had the ability to enact such a plan.
I should've worded my statement better.

I entirely agree with Zapffe's idea that the primary cause of human suffering is our cognition, and there is a lot of evidence for this. We seem to be the only creatures which can suffer simply as a resulting of understanding our own existence. People engage in a lifelong battle against the pain their intellect causes them. This don't mean that other forms of suffering are unimportant (not at all), or that other animals suffering isn't also a problem. Just because I agree with this specific idea of his doesn't mean that I think that life without humans has any value either, or that it should continue.
Ah ok. Seems like we are on the same page. The problems faced by us humans are unfortunately heightened by the curse of consciousness.
 
Last edited:
That's just an opinion.
No it is not. It's based on the universality of the badness of suffering. It's not "my opinion" that it matters when people are harmed. That harm has real value (or rather, disvalue), and morality ought to be used to limit this disvalue. How do we do this? I don't know - it's an ongoing question.
 
I mean that people usually try to get us to prove a negative. There is no objective reason to procreate, and we don't even have to prove why someone shouldn't until people can provide a reason why we should.

What the reason consists of mostly boils down to "because I want to", essentially saying that they can't come up with a better reason to do something than the simple desire to do it. When you understand this, it makes you entirely aware that people are willing to impose all that potential for harm with no better reason that because they want to do so.

It's a process which doesn't need to exist, being perpetuated by people simply because they want to do so, and their desire is a direct result of programming to further the process. It's cyclical, pointless, and we have no objective reason to continue it.

I see, of course you were addressing OP's argument. How can you address an argument which I have yet to make? Jfl, I'm a little tired.

Anyway, you have a point. But what happens when they don't enjoy life? Do you think it's right to knowingly subject someone to a life which they may not want, a life which our instincts usually prevent us from escaping short of very dire circumstances (extreme pain, extreme hopelessness, incoming crisis, etc). I can recognize that for me at least it would be better if I didn't exist, yet right now I can't make myself end it at this very moment. Don't you see how this is troublesome?

A nonexistent person can't be deprived of pleasure, and can't experience pain, so how do you justify bringing people into existence?

Zapffe thought the same tbh, I entirely agree with him.
Looking by that nihilistic optic, nothing has value and everything is pointless, therefore none of us can proof if procreating is either immoral or moral, so procreation is amoral. The burden of proof relies on both of us, once there is no ought, one shouldn't prevented or encouraged to do it. Also, wouldn't the purpose be to maximize one's pleasure (or reduce suffering)? Supposing you are utilitarian (supposing you are a negative one).

Why you think something that is pointless shouldn't be done?

Is there something wrong about doing something because you feel like doing it? Most actions boil down to egoism. You think egoism is evil?

Instincts take part on one's evaluation of life, I don't know why you want to separate it, there is no way to give an objective value to life. One can think life with extreme pain, extreme hopelessness and so on is better than death, you can't objectively value life, that's why the only (as far as I know) way is take in consideration the suicide rates.

A nonexstent person is an oxymoron.

My main two arguments are

1-Pleasure x Suffering when it comes down to the whole population's judgement. This same person can't experience life and though life's brings suffering, life it is preferrable over death by most, therefore the odds are that the child will be benefited from the parent's actions.

2-One can't predict if it's offspring will live a life of suffering, since the latter isn't a logical consequence from birth. Therefore you can't classify its actions as immoral.

Now if you argue that any ammount of suffering, regardless of the ammount of pleasure, makes an action immoral, then all the points are useless. But that's assuming that suffering is bad, therefore you are not looking at it through a nihilistic optic.

Also, would it be immoral to not (inaction) bring one to existence? Assuming that this one would live a life of pure pleasure, no suffering
 
Also, you are not dooming those people (once they have a choice to continue alive or not) to a pain situation nor directly (once existence alone doesn't imply pain) causing it to them
 
Also, wouldn't the purpose be to maximize one's pleasure (or reduce suffering)? Supposing you are utilitarian (supposing you are a negative one).
I'm a negative utilitarian, yes.

I agree with utilitarianism's notion that we should reduce and ideally eliminate suffering, but I don't think that maximizing pleasure or happiness is something we should focus on. Or more specifically, I think that attempting to do the latter is misunderstanding what pleasure even is in the first place.
Why you think something that is pointless shouldn't be done?
I don't think that.

I think that it shouldn't be done because of the potential for harm and the inevitability of harm. When I'm talking about life's propagation being pointless, I'm saying that we have no reason to continue it. The reasons why we shouldn't do it are separate from that.
Is there something wrong about doing something because you feel like doing it?
Not intrinsically.

I would say that it's wrong in this context because it's creating the very capacity for suffering, that it provides nothing (or at least nothing needed because it's creating need), and that just wanting to procreate isn't nearly a good enough reason to do so.
1-Pleasure x Suffering when it comes down to the whole population's judgement. This same person can't experience life and though life's brings suffering, life it is preferrable over death by most, therefore the odds are that the child will be benefited from the parent's actions.
Now I'll go back to what I was getting at about pleasure.

Pleasure is ultimately enslaved to deprivation, and that as far as I can ascertain, just about everything pleasurable in life comes as a result of relieving some preexisting need. While I haven't tried every potential source of pleasure, specifically hard drugs, it would seem that these create a need of their own (and are typically used to cope with pain, both physical and emotional), so idk to what extent these could possibly be separate. Another thing to keep in mind is that much of what we do is done in an effort to relieve boredom, and it can be easily determined that having nothing to do causes suffering for us in and of itself, just look at solitary confinement.

I'm saying that pleasure is a measured reduction in negative utility which we're mistaking to be an independent positive. It feels good because we're perceiving the satisfaction of some need as pleasurable, but ultimately this doesn't actually produce anything.

Of course satisfying needs and reducing negative utility are great things, I'm not saying we shouldn't do them. Rather what I'm actually saying is that while it's good to do this stuff, it would be better if we never had the needs in the first place, since we're only reducing or removing harm already done to us through satisfying them.

An example relevant to users here would be sex, and how prior to puberty we didn't want sex. There was no deprivation for us to feel, and no relief to experience as a result of fulfilling a need which we didn't have. So there was no suffering of this kind, and we certainly weren't missing out on sexual pleasure since this pleasure is dependent upon and enslaved to our craving for sex.

I hope this concise explanation is adequate to understand my thoughts on the subject, as I remember mentioning it to you my other thread but I didn't want to derail it too hard.
2-One can't predict if it's offspring will live a life of suffering, since the latter isn't a logical consequence from birth. Therefore you can't classify its actions as immoral.
It is a logical consequence, it's also inevitable and guaranteed. Humans are need machines, and aside from what I already described about the nature of pleasure, you also have the forms of suffering for which there isn't always an obvious or complete relief. Physical pain (especially chronic pain), hopelessness, existential dread, mortality salience, and other problems which come as a cost of our heightened cognition when compared to other animals.
Now if you argue that any ammount of suffering, regardless of the ammount of pleasure, makes an action immoral, then all the points are useless. But that's assuming that suffering is bad, therefore you are not looking at it through a nihilistic optic.
Yeah we're most probably at an impasse, but I thought that I at least owed you an explanation as to why.

Moral nihilism and existential nihilism are obviously two different things, and while I don't fully agree with either of them, I was using an argument based in the latter to make a point. But yes, I only agree with certain aspects of existential nihilism while wholly rejecting it's moral counterpart.
Also, would it be immoral to not (inaction) bring one to existence? Assuming that this one would live a life of pure pleasure, no suffering
Well this isn't a thought that I've explored too much tbh. Suffice it to say that in a hypothetical world where one could experience exclusively pleasure, I don't think that there would be a moral imperative to create life. But I would argue that in this hypothetical universe where pleasure is true positive utility, then even if procreating isn't a moral imperative, you'd still be doing a good thing.

Of course this is predicated on the existence of this person somehow not being dependent upon the suffering of other sentient life.
Also, you are not dooming those people (once they have a choice to continue alive or not) to a pain situation
They still have to experience enough pain to come to the conclusion that suicide is the right choice for them. Needless to say this isn't an easy choice, and we can reasonably assume that for most it requires a lot of pain, due to our bias for our own continued existence/biological programming.

But you're right in the sense that people can thankfully opt out if their suffering becomes too much to bear, which I'm thankful for and is one of the only redeeming things about this life.
 
Last edited:
Most people are either good at coping or don’t need to do it much
 
“if the will-to-live exists, it cannot, as that which alone is metaphysical or the thing-in-itself, be broken by any force, but that force can destroy only its phenomenon in such a place and at such a time. The will itself cannot be abolished by anything except knowledge. Therefore the only path to salvation is that the will should appear freely and without hindrance, in order that it can recognize or know its own inner nature in this phenomenon.

Only in consequence of this knowledge can the will abolish itself, and thus end the suffering that is inseparable from its phenomenon. This, however, is not possible through physical force, such as the destruction of the seed or germ (contraceptives), the killing of the new-born child, or suicide. Nature leads the will to the light, just because only in the light can it find its salvation. Therefore the purposes of nature are to be promoted in every way, as soon as the will-to-live, that is her inner being, has determined itself."
-The world as will and representation, Vol. I, §69

Not so easy to understand. The creation and and death of beings is mere phenomenon, and does not affect the thing in itself. We cannot free ourselves from existence by circumventing suffering through suicide or using contraceptives, because causality is ideal. Only denial of the will via knowledge only leads to salvation, not physical destruction.

“It is well known that, from time to time, cases repeatedly occur where suicide extends to the children; the father kills the children of whom he is very fond, and then himself. If we bear in mind that conscience, religion, and all traditional ideas teach him to recognize murder as the gravest crime, but yet in the hour of his own death he commits this, and indeed without his having any possible egoistical motive for it, then the deed can be explained only in the following way. The will of the individual again recognizes itself immediately in the children, although it is involved in the delusion of regarding the phenomenon as the being-in-itself. At the same time, he is deeply moved by the knowledge of the misery of all life; he imagines that with the phenomenon he abolishes the inner nature itself, and therefore wants to deliver from existence and its misery both himself and his children in whom he directly sees himself living again. It would be an error wholly analogous to this to suppose that one can reach the same end as is attained by voluntary chastity by frustrating the aims of nature in fecundation, or even by men, in consideration of the inevitable suffering of life, countenancing the death of the new-born child, instead of rather doing everything to ensure life to every being that is pressing into it. ”
 
Last edited:
Not so easy to understand. The creation and and death of beings is mere phenomenon, and does not affect the thing in itself. We cannot free ourselves from existence by circumventing suffering through suicide or using contraceptives, because causality is ideal. Only denial of the will via knowledge only leads to salvation, not physical destruction.
Nigga wat?
 
Nigga wat?
Nigga basically for the laymen you will keep getting reborn after death or suicide, babies killed or prevented will manifest as another individual elsewhere in another place and time, etc. It's futile. Unless the end is sought through voluntary asceticism.
 
Posting so I can come back to this later. I have no position on antinatalism, but I will try to produce counter-arguments for it.
 
Posting so I can come back to this later. I have no position on antinatalism, but I will try to produce counter-arguments for it.

What are the counterarguments?
 
Posting so I can come back to this later. I have no position on antinatalism, but I will try to produce counter-arguments for it.
What are the counterarguments?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top