Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Wilber Armstrong and I'm an internationally renowned philosopher and social critic. You've probably heard of me.
Lately, I've been pondering the ethics of childbearing. Is it right? Is it wrong? Some argue that life is a beautiful gift, whilst others argue that existence is the cause of suffering. After some time of studying the childfree/antinatalist communities and the reasons why people DO have children, I believe I've devised a great argument.
To ask whether having children is right or wrong is already to commit a category error of embarrassing naïveté. For the act of reproduction is neither moral nor immoral, but para-ethical: it exists in the liminal vestibule where ethics removes its shoes and forgets why it entered the house.
The prospective parent, believing themselves an agent, is in fact merely a corridor through which Being shoves another invoice into existence. One does not “choose” to have a child any more than a wave chooses to collapse; both are gestures of matter briefly pretending to have opinions.
Those who argue that having children is right appeal to continuity, legacy, and the warm narcotic of meaning. They insist that life must propagate in order to justify its own inconvenience. This is circular, of course, but all noble arguments are circles wearing robes.
Those who argue that having children is wrong cite suffering, consent, and the moral indecency of summoning a consciousness without first obtaining its signature. Yet this position collapses under the weight of its own seriousness, since no non-existent being has ever filed a complaint except philosophers, who are already alive and thus compromised.
The truth, insofar as truth can survive being touched by language, is this: having a child is an ontological shrug. It is neither an act of hope nor an act of cruelty, but an administrative error repeated across millennia. The universe does not care, morality cannot decide, and the child (once old enough) will blame you regardless.
Thus, the only coherent ethical stance is to speak solemnly about the issue at dinner parties, use words like teleology and moral horizon, and then quietly do whatever you were going to do anyway.
In this way, philosophy fulfils its highest purpose: transforming confusion into confidence without resolving anything at all.
Now, please enjoy this quote by yours truly:
“Childbearing is not a moral act but a metaphysical interruption: neither benevolent nor cruel, only the moment where ethics hesitates and existence continues anyway.” - Wilber Armstrong
Thank you for reading. If you'd like to learn more about me, follow @officialwilberarmstrong on Instagram.
Lately, I've been pondering the ethics of childbearing. Is it right? Is it wrong? Some argue that life is a beautiful gift, whilst others argue that existence is the cause of suffering. After some time of studying the childfree/antinatalist communities and the reasons why people DO have children, I believe I've devised a great argument.
To ask whether having children is right or wrong is already to commit a category error of embarrassing naïveté. For the act of reproduction is neither moral nor immoral, but para-ethical: it exists in the liminal vestibule where ethics removes its shoes and forgets why it entered the house.
The prospective parent, believing themselves an agent, is in fact merely a corridor through which Being shoves another invoice into existence. One does not “choose” to have a child any more than a wave chooses to collapse; both are gestures of matter briefly pretending to have opinions.
Those who argue that having children is right appeal to continuity, legacy, and the warm narcotic of meaning. They insist that life must propagate in order to justify its own inconvenience. This is circular, of course, but all noble arguments are circles wearing robes.
Those who argue that having children is wrong cite suffering, consent, and the moral indecency of summoning a consciousness without first obtaining its signature. Yet this position collapses under the weight of its own seriousness, since no non-existent being has ever filed a complaint except philosophers, who are already alive and thus compromised.
The truth, insofar as truth can survive being touched by language, is this: having a child is an ontological shrug. It is neither an act of hope nor an act of cruelty, but an administrative error repeated across millennia. The universe does not care, morality cannot decide, and the child (once old enough) will blame you regardless.
Thus, the only coherent ethical stance is to speak solemnly about the issue at dinner parties, use words like teleology and moral horizon, and then quietly do whatever you were going to do anyway.
In this way, philosophy fulfils its highest purpose: transforming confusion into confidence without resolving anything at all.
Now, please enjoy this quote by yours truly:
“Childbearing is not a moral act but a metaphysical interruption: neither benevolent nor cruel, only the moment where ethics hesitates and existence continues anyway.” - Wilber Armstrong
Thank you for reading. If you'd like to learn more about me, follow @officialwilberarmstrong on Instagram.
