Philosophical antinatalists can’t tell you how to live your life - Yes life is worthwhile, it is a wonder to be alive - and kids are of great value to our world and in themselves
- you decide your ethics and values
This is not a philosophical paper. This is to help people scared by dumbed down internet discussions of anti-natalism, the philosophical idea that it is better not to have kids. They worry most about the ideas of a philosopher called Benatar who argues that we shouldn’t have kids ever.
He says we shouldn’t have kids because kids are bound to suffer even if they have lives of much pleasure. He says it is also wrong to deprive people who are alive of life. That it is not right to deprive living beings of pleasure. But he thinks we shouldn’t bring new life into being and just let humans go extinct by not having any more kids from now on.
This is philosophy, for every idea like that there are many philosophers who find flaws with his arguments and tell him they are wrong. There are many life affirming philosophers. Some of them have responded to Benatar refuting his arguments.
Benatar responds to them finding flaws in all their refutations of his points. They reply finding flaws in his answers to their refutations, and it goes on and on getting more and more complicated with thousands of pages of text on the topic. This sort of debate goes on and on and is typically never resolved. Instead you get various ideas that go in and out of fashion.
However it’s mainly Benatar’s views are getting spread on the internet and that people are getting scared by, taken out of context of this larger philosophical debater and the much larger context of numerous philosophers who don’t even give such ideas much attention as they are not relevant to their own philosophies. Most philosophers won’t have written anything on anti-natalism, it’s not a central topic in philosophy.
We need to step back. Why would any philosophers have such a counterintuitive idea? Is he being serious? Should anyone else pay any attention to his arguments in real life.
We will find that there is no need for anyone to pay attention to such ideas in their ordinary daily life. We can decide our own values and ethics.
We can also bring value to our lives. Even if our lives have lots of suffering, even if we have pain life-long, we can make this a life of great value, a life of kindness, compassion, a life devoted to helping others, or to some end we consider of great value.
Most people are life affirming, greatly value human life, and that is okay and good.
But first let’s look at what philosophy is. Why would anyone study such a frustrating topic where you never get answers? And don’t expect to get answers. Benatar is convinced by his own philosophical ideas but he’d never expect to get answers that will persuade all other philosophers. It is just not that sort of a topic.
I did a second degree in philosophy and greatly value my philosophical education :). It helps to give you an open mind, to look at things from many angles, to see new things you might not see otherwise. But it doesn’t answer fundamental questions. It almost always seems to raise far more questions than it answers.
I will start with epistemology - how we know that anything exists at all. E.g. how do you know that you are holding a laptop or a mobile phone? It is something most people wouldn’t even begin to question.
But it’s from that questioning approach that philosophers come up with such bizarre sounding ideas as antinatalism.
I think it’s better to start with an emotionally more neutral topic such as how we know anything at all to see how philosophy works before we get to the more emotionally charged topic of antinatalism.
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY AND WHY WOULD ANYONE BECOME A PHILSOPHER? NOT WITH ANY EXPECTATION TO ANSWER EVERYTHING, IT’S MUCH MORE ABOUT A FASCINATION WITH THE QUESTIONS WE CAN’T ANSWER
When I decided I wanted to do a second degree in philosophy and I had an interview with the philosophy department to decide if I was a suitable student to study philosophy - after completing my maths degree - the interviewing philosopher told me to read Bertrand Russell’s “Problems of philosphy” and then discuss it. It’s a great book to get you started on philosophizing :).
His first chapter has a long section asking if we can ever know that there is a table in front of us, and if so how. Nowadays you could replace that with mobile phone or laptop. Do you really know that you are typing into a laptop? or a mobile phone? If so, how do you know and what do you know?
Now - he is NOT questioning whether we can know anything in an ordinary sense. Bertrand Russel knew many things. He could read, write, he passed exams, he could sit on chairs, open doors etc, he just functioned like any ordinary person. His question is rather, how does he know these things?
Note on gender words - his language is from a past generation, he uses “no reasonable man” where we’d now use “no reasonable person”.
He starts with a question, is there any knowledge so certain no reasonable person can doubt it? Then after looking at many things we take for granted and say we know, he decides to focus on a table as a way to introduce us to philosophical thinking.
He then has several paragraphs about whether and how we can ever know we have a table in front of us. He ends this passage by asking:
(1) Is there a real table at all? (2) If so, what sort of object can it be?
This isn’t directly to do with antinatalism. My purpose here is just to give the flavour of philosophical thinking. You can get a good idea of the basic argument here by reading just the text in bold.
Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked. When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy—for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically, after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.
In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe. In the search for certainty, it is natural to begin with our present experiences, and in some sense, no doubt, knowledge is to be derived from them. But any statement as to what it is that our immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong. It seems to me that I am now sitting in a chair, at a table of a certain shape, on which I see sheets of paper with writing or print. By turning my head I see out of the window buildings and clouds and the sun. I believe that the sun is about ninety-three million miles from the earth; that it is a hot globe many times bigger than the earth; that, owing to the earth's rotation, it rises every morning, and will continue to do so for an indefinite time in the future. I believe that, if any other normal person comes into my room, he will see the same chairs and tables and books and papers as I see, and that the table which I see is the same as the table which I feel pressing against my arm. All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything. Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a form that is wholly true.
To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound. Any one else who sees and feels and hears the table will agree with this description, so that it might seem as if no difficulty would arise; but as soon as we try to be more precise our troubles begin. Although I believe that the table is 'really' of the same colour all over, the parts that reflect the light look much brighter than the other parts, and some parts look white because of reflected light. I know that, if I move, the parts that reflect the light will be different, so that the apparent distribution of colours on the table will change. It follows that if several people are looking at the table at the same moment, no two of them will see exactly the same distribution of colours, because no two can see it from exactly the same point of view, and any change in the point of view makes some change in the way the light is reflected.
For most practical purposes these differences are unimportant, but to the painter they are all-important: the painter has to unlearn the habit of thinking that things seem to have the colour which common sense says they 'really' have, and to learn the habit of seeing things as they appear. Here we have already the beginning of one of the distinctions that cause most trouble in philosophy—the distinction between 'appearance' and 'reality', between what things seem to be and what they are. The painter wants to know what things seem to be, the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are; but the philosopher's wish to know this is stronger than the practical man's, and is more troubled by knowledge as to the difficulties of answering the question.
To return to the table. It is evident from what we have found, that there is no colour which pre-eminently appears to be the colour of the table, or even of any one particular part of the table—it appears to be of different colours from different points of view, and there is no reason for regarding some of these as more really its colour than others. And we know that even from a given point of view the colour will seem different by artificial light, or to a colour-blind man, or to a man wearing blue spectacles, while in the dark there will be no colour at all, though to touch and hearing the table will be unchanged. This colour is not something which is inherent in the table, but something depending upon the table and the spectator and the way the light falls on the table. When, in ordinary life, we speak of the colour of the table, we only mean the sort of colour which it will seem to have to a normal spectator from an ordinary point of view under usual conditions of light. But the other colours which appear under other conditions have just as good a right to be considered real; and therefore, to avoid favouritism, we are compelled to deny that, in itself, the table has any one particular colour.
The same thing applies to the texture. With the naked eye one can see the grain, but otherwise the table looks smooth and even. If we looked at it through a microscope, we should see roughnesses and hills and valleys, and all sorts of differences that are imperceptible to the naked eye. Which of these is the 'real' table? We are naturally tempted to say that what we see through the microscope is more real, but that in turn would be changed by a still more powerful microscope. If, then, we cannot trust what we see with the naked eye, why should we trust what we see through a microscope? Thus, again, the confidence in our senses with which we began deserts us.
The shape of the table is no better. We are all in the habit of judging as to the 'real' shapes of things, and we do this so unreflectingly that we come to think we actually see the real shapes. But, in fact, as we all have to learn if we try to draw, a given thing looks different in shape from every different point of view. If our table is 'really' rectangular, it will look, from almost all points of view, as if it had two acute angles and two obtuse angles. If opposite sides are parallel, they will look as if they converged to a point away from the spectator; if they are of equal length, they will look as if the nearer side were longer. All these things are not commonly noticed in looking at a table, because experience has taught us to construct the 'real' shape from the apparent shape, and the 'real' shape is what interests us as practical men. But the 'real' shape is not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see. And what we see is constantly changing in shape as we move about the room; so that here again the senses seem not to give us the truth about the table itself, but only about the appearance of the table.
Similar difficulties arise when we consider the sense of touch. It is true that the table always gives us a sensation of hardness, and we feel that it resists pressure. But the sensation we obtain depends upon how hard we press the table and also upon what part of the body we press with; thus the various sensations due to various pressures or various parts of the body cannot be supposed to reveal directly any definite property of the table, but at most to be signs of some property which perhaps causes all the sensations, but is not actually apparent in any of them. And the same applies still more obviously to the sounds which can be elicited by rapping the table.
Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not the same as what we immediately experience by sight or touch or hearing. The real table, if there is one, is not immediately known to us at all, but must be an inference from what is immediately known. Hence, two very difficult questions at once arise; namely, (1) Is there a real table at all? (2) If so, what sort of object can it be?
I should say that his first sentence of that last paragraph is controversial.
Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not the same as what we immediately experience by sight or touch or hearing.
Some philosophers are naive realists, that the world is pretty much as we think of it - that despite all the difficulties Russell and others present, the real table is indeed what we immediately experience by sight, touch or hearing. They find other solutions to this dilemma introduce more problems than they solve. More generally they have various views according to which the table is directly present, rather than only known about indirectly.
Anyone interested in following this up further can check out the entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
. Epistemological Problems of Perception: Varieties of direct presence
What I’ve given you here is just a flavour of the basic questions of epistemology, how we know things. Philosophers have written numerous treatises on the topic, papers book, probably millions of words on the topic. I don’t want to go any further on that adventure here though. It is just to give you a flavour of the questions philosophers ask.
However none of this has any effect on how we interact with tables, laptops etc. We don’t need to consult philosophers to learn how to use a laptop. We can just do it. Our ordinary ideas of what a laptop are function fine.
THE IS - OUGHT DILEMMA
It is the same with ethics. Most people don’t even give much thought to where their ethics comes from. It is how they were brought up, it’s from their society, it is based on things they see for themselves. They may have personal experiences that lead to ethical insights, leading them to value of truth, honesty, non harming. Sometimes the opposite they may get involved in serious lying, violence, etc.
But most people don’t reflect on HOW they come to a personal ethical system or how their society developed it just like they don’t reflect on HOW they know that they are using a laptop or a mobile phone.
Philosophers though do reflect on these things, just as they do with tables and mobile phones.
So we see that our morality and ethics and ethical views are not arbitrary but they are based on values that we may have that we come to by other means and not from philosophy.
Could they ever come directly from just philosophical investigations? Much like the way we know the physical constants in nature, the melting point of water, the melting point of iron etc?
This is one of the big questions in philosophy. Hume asked, how can you derive an "ought" from an "is"? From knowing what things exist, how they behave and so on, how can you ever come to a conclusion about what you as an individual or others ought to do?
He says that in every philosophical system of morality derived from philosophy he knew, writing in the early eighteenth century, they make this transition without explaining how they did it.
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
Section 1: Moral distinctions not derived from Reason from A Treatise of Human Nature
Moore is a good example of someone who argued strongly that you can't, a non naturalist account of ethics.
In this context, naturalist means you think that there is some kind of universal ethics that can be derived directly from scientific / natural properties of things.
It seems impossible to resolve such questions by any form of empirical investigation. Nobody has any doubts about the melting point of ice at atmospheric pressure, never mind maths like 1 + 1 = 2. But when it come to things like a couple deciding whether to have kids, or even about whether to tell the truth or lie, you can’t make a decision like that in the same way that you can do research into the melting point of ice.
QUOTE STARTS
These are all examples of naturalist accounts of morality that identify various moral properties with non-problematic natural features of the world. As a result, they are commonly characterized as versions of naturalism and are contrasted with non-naturalist views that see morality as presupposing, or being committed to, properties over and above those that would be countenanced by natural science.
Non-naturalism comes with two distinctive burdens: (i) accounting for how the realm of moral properties fits in with familiar natural properties and (ii) explaining how it is that we are able to learn anything about these moral properties. Naturalism, in contrast, avoids these metaphysical and epistemological burdens.
Despite its advantages, naturalism has difficulty capturing well what people take to be the true nature of morality. In saying something is good or right or virtuous we seem to be saying something more than, or at least different from, what we would be saying in describing it as having certain natural features. Correspondingly, no amount of empirical investigation seems by itself, without some moral assumption(s) in play, sufficient to settle a moral question.
It is one of the big debates in philosophy whether there can be a naturalist foundation of ethics / morality or not.
It's a topic in metaethics.
The discussion of why we have ethics.
But all this, even metaethics itself is philosophy much like in epistemology philosophers ask if a table exists and if so, what sort of object is it and how can we know about it.
In the same way in metaethics, philosophers ask what ethics is, how can we have ethics, and how is it we can have any system of values?
Even the very best philosophers of their time can get into a depressive mood wondering about why they can’t use philosophy to answer fundamental questions you have. This was David Hume and one of my favourite passages too (I was especially keen on David Hume when studying for my second undergraduate degree in philosophy)
QUOTE STARTS
“Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? ... I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty.
Most fortunately it happens, that since Reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, Nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends. And when, after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.”
. My favorite passage from David Hume's work `An Enquiry Concerning Human Understa...
It is David Hume came up with the "is ought" question originally.
Ordinary people don’t need to resolve any of this. We can be naive realists in how we conduct our lives, we know what a table is, what a laptop or mobile phone is and don’t need to do any philosophizing if not inclined that way.
Similarly we can just have an ethical system or values without needing to puzzle over how it is we canb do this.
PHILOSOPHY HAS NEVER FOUND FINAL ANSWERS, RATHER, LOTS OF DIFFERENT ANSWERS BUT NO WAY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM
Philosophy rarely gives final answers. It helps more by clarifying the questions.
You do get answers. The problem is you get a huge range of answers with philosophers that will give you almost any answer you can think of, elaborated in great detail.
On almost any question you get a whole range of schools of philosophy with different ideas on how to answer them. Then those answers come in and out of fashion and certain ideas become more prevalent.
E.g. on philosophy of maths which I was working in, there are several main approaches with no way to decide between them.
There is no way to truly know which philosophy can be said to be truly correct beyond any reasonable doubt.
That is not really the purpose of philosophy. It's more about having an open mind I think.
It doesn't work like science. You never get a final correct scientific theory either. But philosophy doesn't even work like science of more and more exactly fitting the data.
In science, any new theory of gravity has to explain all the observations that fit general relativity and all the observations that fit Newton's theory. Even if the ideas are radically different it has to produce all those numbers to many places of precision.
With philosophy, especially ethics, it is more about which view is more appropriate for you. You can't resolve many things.
Example nobody knows what happens when we die and there is no way to resolve that with philosophy or science. If there is any way to make a start on this question, it's not with the science we have yet. It is something that goes beyond science.
But philosophy can't resolve it. Or religious arguments.
There are many very careful thoughtful scientists in all the main religions.
We may be able to find some truths in philosophy.
But antinatalism for sure is an example of a topic we can't expect to resolve. Some people are antenatalist - a very small minority. Nearly all greatly value human life.
Philosophy can help clarify what the differences in view are about.
But it's never resolved things like this.
If it never has in all of human history how could we resolve it in a short conversation now 🙂
Philosophy can give a reasonable answer for sure. The issue is with having an answer that will be also universal for everyone in the world. That we can't achieve.
One could be optimistic about philosophy and say that you hope that some day in the future we may find a philosophical answer that everyone sees resolves their questions and can't be challenged.
But we certainly don't have that today.
SO WE NEED TO WORK OUT OUR OWN ETHICS - THIS IS NOT SCARY - IT IS WHAT EVERYONE DOES ANYWAY - BASED ON YOUR UPBRINGING, YOUR COMMUNITY AND YOUR OWN EXPERIENCES
It's not scary. You can work out your own ethics 🙂
Most people have numerous things that are part of their personal ethics, things they believe, decided long ago etc. Things they can sometimes change their views on.
This is the normal state of affairs. We don't expect everyone to have the same ethical views on everything as we would if ethics was purely naturalist and could be derived from basic ideas like pleasure and pain.
So - non-naturalism is basically what the ordinary non philosophizing person believes.
We don't expect everyone to have the same ethics and we don't try to. But we have basic principles almost everyone agrees on and we also have laws in addition sometimes arbitrary such as which side of the road to drive.
Philosophers how are “naturalists” think that it is possible to derive an objective ethical system of values from pure thought. But even they don’t know HOW to do that, not in any objective way, with many different proposals for how to do it and no way to resolve them.
OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE, WILL HELP BRING ABOUT THE SUSTAINABLE, BIODIVERSITY PRESERVING ZERO EMISSIONS FUTURE WE ARE AIMING FOR
First nearly everyone wants to live. Even when people are suicidal, many are glad they didn't go through with it - or if they tried but it didn't work.
Also people can do a lot of good. There is so much focus on ways we harm the environment not all the ways we protect and preserve it.
Our children are the future, they will bring about the sustainable, renewables based, zero carbon future preserving biodiversity.
For those who worry about climate change, your children as they grow up will be the first zero carbon generation and many of them will be the voters / politicians / presidents / legislators / scientists / engineers / influencers / just ordinary folk doing their bit for the environment and the planet who help bring this about. I talk about that here
BLOG: Simple lifestyle changes to help reduce global warming and biodiversity loss
MOST PEOPLE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY KIND AND MOST OF THE WORLD IS AT PEACE
Also, most people are fundamentally kind. It is easy to feel people are horrid to each other because the news focuses so much on the bad things going on but even in the middle of war zones there is kindness everywhere.
We can make our lives worthwhile, use them to help others and to help people who are suffering and to find a positive way ahead ourselves.
OUR GENERATION’S KIDS ARE HEADED FOR A WORLD THAT IS STILL FULL OF WONDER AND NATURE ON ALL SCENARIOS
This is about how we are headed for a world of wonder and nature in it on all scenarios. I posted this some years ago when we didn't know for sure we could stay within 3 C.
BLOG: Yes our generation’s children are headed for a world with nature and wonder in it
We are aiming for a world of zero hunger, zero poverty, good health and well being, quality education etc, the sustainable development goals of the UN.
We can make our lives worthwhile, use them to help others and to help people who are suffering and to find a positive way ahead ourselves.
Climate scientists, experts on biodiversity loss, and economists, political scientists, sociologists have all worked together and shown we have a solution that maximizes good quality of life and with growth in everything we value.
BLOG: Fact Check: Fact Check: IPCC's Transformative Change Maximises GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE With GROWTH In Everything We Value, Not COLLAPSE
We are headed for 1.8 C with current realistic pledges.
There is so much that is good. And we can find value in our lives and in helping others and suffering doesn't stop our lives from having value.
VALUING HUMAN LIFE BECAUSE OF OUR ABILITY TO BE KIND / WISE AND TO UNDERSTAND AND RECEIVE TEACHINGS FROM OTHERS WHO ARE WISE AND KIND
I'm a Buddhist and the Buddhist teachings are a bit different from Christian ones and put it all in a different perspective.
Buddha taught a path to nirvana which is freedom of all suffering and true happiness. Finding the root cause of suffering and seeing through it.
One of the meditations Buddhists do is about how valuable the human life is. We can receive teachings on kindness, compassion, helping others, working through things. Animals, insect,s birds can't do that in the ordinary sense as we do.
Of course Buddhists think in terms of vast numbers of past and future lives which gives a different perspective and that in the future all beings become Buddha.
However reflecting on how valuable and precious a human life is can help whatever one's religious or philosophical background.
For instance many humanists see it like that too as of tremendous value.
If you see a human life as of tremendous value the antinatalist arguments just don't work for you.
I am not answering like a philosophy paper. I don't think this is the sort of thing can be resolved by philosophers anyway.
It depends on your religious or philosophical beliefs / perspective. We give value to our lives.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Nobody else can tell us what value we should place on a baby.
A young child’s life is of tremendous value, most agree.
In ordinary life, this is resolved by understanding, warmth and kindness not by philosophy.
You can't tell a mother using philosophical reasoning that her baby is of no value and is better never born. That simply makes no human sense.
BENATAR’S ANTI-NATALIST REASONING - NOT PRO MORTALISM
Benatar’s argument is that it is wrong to deprive living people of pleasure but that it is not wrong to prevent beings from coming into being who may experience pleasure.
Because those beings don't exist so there is nobody to be deprived of pleasure.
While he argues that if you bring a being into existence who experiences pain then you have caused pain to a living being just by bringing them into existence.
He says we need to avoid causing pain while we have no obligation to bring beings into existence to experience pleasure.
Asymmetries
One of my arguments for the conclusion that coming into existence is always a harm appeals to an asymmetry between pleasures and pains (and between benefits and harms more generally):
1) The presence of pain is bad; and
2) The presence of pleasure is good.
3) The absence of pain is good (even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone); but
4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
. Every Conceivable Harm: A Further Defence of Anti-Natalism
If you want to find out more about his ideas there’s a long video interview here
Video: Antinatalism – should we let humanity go extinct? David Benatar vs Bruce Blackshaw
It isn't really a debate, more an interview where Bruce Blackshaw talks to David Benestar to find out about his ideas.
Benatar’s views seem to be widely shared on the internet but it is just one of many ideas on the topic. He talks about numerous philosophers who disagree with his arguments in his paper here:
. Every Conceivable Harm: A Further Defence of Anti-Natalism
Then the Standford Encyclopedia of Philiosophy has a long section about various reasons why one might be anti-natalist or pro-natalist philosophically as part of a very long philosophical article about the ethics of parenthood and procreation.
In the following entry, we divide these questions into three sequential stages: the ethics of procreation (creating a child), to which we devote two sections, and then becoming parents (acquiring parental rights and responsibilities) and being parents (holding and discharging parental rights and responsibilities).
. 2. Procreative Autonomy 2.1 Defenses of a right to procreate 2.2 Conservative perspectives on procreative autonomy 2.3 Feminist perspectives on procreative autonomy 2.4 Anti-natalism
. 3. The Morality of Procreation 3.1 The Non-Identity Problem and Impersonal Considerations 3.2 Assisted Reproductive Technologies 3.3 “Surrogacy” and Contractually Assisted Reproduction 3.4 Enhancement 3.5 State Policies 3.6 A Right Not to Procreate?
However I’m not writing a philosophy blog post here. It’s enough to know there are numerous other views on the topic and numerous arguments back and forth about it.
Instead this is to help you to jump out of it all to naive ethics just as for naive realism.
VALUING THIS LIFE FOR ITS POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP KINDNESS, UNDERSTANDING, AND TO HELP OTHERS
It doesn’t matter which of the main religions you are brought up in, or if it is in a humanist or atheist tradition. I was brought up in the Christian tradition and it is very similar, teachings on kindness, generosity, patience, developing wisdom.
This is one of the meditations in Buddhism, on the value of a human life. We bring out that value through non harming and through acting to benefit others.
The Buddha said, “Within your own mind, you already have what you need to succeed—the ability to put others ahead of yourself. This is called virtue, the wish-fulfilling jewel.”
Whatever our situation, we can use virtue to make our life meaningful, strong, and happy. In the Tibetan tradition, “virtue” doesn’t have a heavily moralistic or religious overtone. Rather, it comes from our determination to develop the wisdom to clearly see how the world works, and the compassion to always hold the welfare of others in mind.
…
Virtuous activity doesn’t have to be a heroic task. It can be as simple as letting go of our agenda for a moment and appreciating where we are. Then we can open the door for somebody, say good morning with a smile, inquire about another’s family, or take time off from a project to celebrate progress or a birthday. Instead of secretly wishing for our co-workers’ demise, we can look at them and know that just like us, they want happiness.
Becoming familiar with the source of true happiness, we are cultivating the sanity of a sakyong, “earth-protector.” Because we are protecting the ground of our own sanity, the capacity to increase our noble qualities has no boundaries. The irony is that as we put others first, our own wishes and desires come to fruition simultaneously.
Being patient, generous, disciplined, and exerting ourselves in basic decency—when we act like this, our mind feels better. Saying something positive feels better than saying something negative. Loving generates energy; anger uses it up. Greed and self-absorption manifest in our life as hassles that remind us that, without virtue, we are either standing still or moving backwards.
The mind that has the genuine intention of helping others manifests in many ways, but in the end it always brings happiness, because it is rooted in compassion.
RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF PRE-EXISTENCE - FROM EASTERN RELIGION TO WORDSWORTH’S “TRAILING CLOUDS OF GLORY”
Coming from a Buddhist perspective I can perhaps mention something they never seem to bring up in these Western philosophical debates. What if we existed before we were born?
That is how Buddhists think about it, that this is one of numerous lives and one of tremendous value because being born as a human means you can understand, get teachings, develop in wisdom and kindness and generosity and openness.
I had the good fortune to be born as a human being and to parents and in a culture that values kindness.
If my parents hadn’t had me as a child, I’d have taken birth in some other form, from a Buddhist point of view I might have been an animal or insect, for instance, with a very limited world view and with very dim perception and understanding.
This human birth is a wonderful gift out of all the possible lives I could have had.
Buddhists, Jains, Hindus all think like this. Jains think that we can take rebirth even as plants and they show respect to plants in their lives.
Theosophists following Rudolph Steiner also believe in past and future lives thinking of them all as human. Some Muslims and Jews also believe in multiple lives.
The poet Wordsworth had a similar view in his poem “Intimations of immortality”
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!…
Hence in a season of calm weather
Though inland far we be,
Our Souls have sight of that immortal sea
Which brought us hither,
Can in a moment travel thither,
And see the Children sport upon the shore,
And hear the mighty waters rolling evermore…
Thanks to the human heart by which we live,
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,
To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.
VALUING OUR LIVES EVEN WHEN FILLED WITH PAIN
Benatar’s anti-natalism is based on the idea that somehow we can work out the objective value of a life, and whether it is better to have lived or not. But we make value for our lives.
Someone might care greatly about others and not be concerned about their own suffering. So how then can someone else tell them that their suffering would be a reason not to bring them into existence?
People are often willing to suffer a lot to help someone else for instance. Mothers often will take on a lot of suffering for sake of a child they care about deeply. That is their decision, how they value life.
Some people have major handicaps like Steven Hawking had. Others have pain all their life, sometimes extreme pain.
Yet they value their life, they find value in helping others, in the things they can do. People who experience pain all their life often find they experience pain differently. It’s there, they would rather it wasn’t there but they can live with it.
Will they be like this forever?
Hopefully not. Although we cannot predict any changes to the actual pain levels, many people with persistent pain improve their overall quality of life (for example, increase their daily activity) by following the various suggestions over time:
Pacing themselves and avoiding pushing through pain[MC1] [WB2] to get tasks done.
Finding a physical activity they enjoy doing on a regular basis
Actively prioritising relaxation techniques
Plus many more individual suggestions that may be made.
I can speak here from experience. I have a persistent headache I’ve had all my life and doctors haven’t been able to resolve it. It’s always there but it’s not a problem. I’d rather it wasn't there but I can live with it.
I also used to get gout attacks which can be quite severe pain to the extent you can’t sleep until the attack is over. I now have medication that manages it, a couple of pills I take every day and I’ve never had gout since I started on it (allopurinol).
But none of this in any way means I wish I never lived. If I could go back and talk to my parents and somehow prevent them conceiving me I would not do it. I am very glad I am alive :).
So how can Benatar tell me that I would be better never to have existed in order to avoid that pain? Or any other pains?
The answer is he can’t. He can make such decisions for himself only and in practice since we can’t do anything about our own births, the only situation where this actually has any practical relevance is if a couple is deciding whether to have a child.
It is rare for people to wish they never existed, only usually when in very depressed states of mind - and then they often get out of those states. You can't really tell others what their values should be.
So - we have to find out what our own values are.
That is what everyone does even philosophers in real life. They might wish they could get to them by philosophy if they are naturalists but in reality they can't.
So - the distinction between naturalist and non naturalist approaches to metaethics is rather abstract and theoretical since nobody is able to work out a fully rational naturalist ethics. They try but they can't do it or they would be able to derive a single objective ethical system and nobody has ever done that.
Most people value human life greatly and that’s wonderful.
And if someone else is an anti-natalist - they don't say that people already alive should be killed or should die. As Benatar puts it anti-natalism isn't pro-mortalism.
Once one is alive that’s something to value and make the best of.
In practice antinatalism is a small movement that is never going to be popular.
Some antinatalists might decide not to have kids for philosophical reasons but it's surely not common or ever likely to be.
There are always large numbers of people who value new life and babies very highly.
EVERYONE’S LIFE IS OF VAST, INFINITE POTENTIAL - THE VALUE IS WHAT YOU PUT INTO IT
If you ask whether your life is worthwhile, everyone's life is of value, it's got vast infinite potential.
The value is what you put into it.
Buddhists say that if all you do is give someone a glass of water but you do it with the wish to help all beings that small action of helping someone who is thirsty is of vast immeasurable value.
So that's an example.
How can anyone tell them that giving a glass of water is NOT of immeasurable value?
They can't.
Because it's their attitude, the value they put into it because of their wish to help all beings that gives it value.
Buddhists believe that doing that has a vast immeasurable impact.
Not directly, if you just measure it they just gave someone a glass of water.
It's like the ripple effects of it.
Transforming the action in your heart and in the world.
IT IS ONLY WITH THE HEART THAT ONE CAN SEE RIGHTLY: WHAT IS ESSENTIAL IS INVISIBLE TO THE EYE - SAINT EXUPERY
Saint Exupery’s “The Little Prince” is a whimsical surrealist story about a little prince who lives on a small asteroid not much larger than he is, and befriends a rose, who he cares for deeply as it grows up, but eventually ends up on Earth and meets an aviator. He goes through many adventures and you need to read the story to get the context.
He befriends a fox and the fox tells him his secret. This passage from Saint Exupery "the LIttle Prince", in the section on the taming of the fox, this is the fox’s secret:
"Here is my secret. It is very simple. It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; What is essential is invisible to the eye."
Quote from chapter XXI. The Little Prince: Antoine De Saint-Exupéry's Whimsical Tale
Later the aviator finds the little Prince close to dying of thirst and gives him a drink of water and then the prince talks to the aviator about how you can go through life and never find what you are looking for but may find it in a little water or a single rose.
“People where you live," the little prince said, "grow five thousand roses in one garden... yet they don't find what they're looking for...
They don't find it," I answered.
And yet what they're looking for could be found in a single rose, or a little water..."
Of course," I answered.
And the little prince added, "But eyes are blind. You have to look with the heart.”
quote from Chapter XXV. The Little Prince: Antoine De Saint-Exupéry's Whimsical Tale
I think the thing is to trust ones heart. To ground oneself in warmth and kindness and if your ethics has that foundation it can't go far wrong.
The basics is not to harm self or others and where possible to help self and others.
It's what analytical philosophy misses so easily. Warmth and kindness and the values that come from that.
The Dalai Lama put it like this:
"love and compassion predominate in the world. And this is why unpleasant events are news, compassionate activities are so much part of daily life that they are taken for granted and, therefore, largely ignored.."
If someone lives a life of kindness and compassion, how can one say their life is of no value? Even if they have a life full of suffering.
It's usually people worried about bringing kids into the world because of worries about climate change or biodiversity etc.
Then they have heard of anti-natalis and worry this means they shouldn't have kids or some such.
So then my answer is about talking about how their kid's generation is the future that can make it a positive future etc like how I started the conversation.
NO NEED TO READ / WATCH ANTINATAL MATERIAL
If you have got scared by anti-natalism in its populist forms - it is easy to get involved in reading more and more of it. But that’s the opposite of what you need to do.
If you have panicked about this, and this blog post gives you some relief from your anxiety, you need to stop searching.
This is not the right time to try exposure therapy.
PHiloosphers like Benatar are not scared by any of this.
Meanwhile, most people have never even seen this philosophical material. There is no need for anyone to read it except philosophers. And absolutely no need to watch any TikToks or YouTube videos about it - they often get things very wrong.
You need a break from it. The thing is that you have got scared by reading badly written / researched / false stories.
So reading more of that will make things worse not better.
And when you are panicking then your mind is not able to pick up the flaws in what you read.
Antinatalilsm is a very rare and unusual view. It's hardly an echo chamber to think life is worth living and that it is good to have babies. That is the normal view and has been since humans first evolved.
It's not quite the same, but for instance, you don't need to read equal amounts of material on flat earth and round earth.
It is perfectly okay to let your mind rest when you have got over your panic even if briefly.
There is no need to recreate the panic. And you can leave this, it's not an urgent thing you have to resolve overnight.
It is philosophy. As I explained it depends on your values. Nobody else can tell a mother that they must not value their child as better living than not living.
No amount of cold dry academic philosophy can or should do that.
Reading and re-reading the things that scare you is like a kind of fear inducing indoctrination.
It isn't for the people who write those things. They are not scared by antinatalism.
But ti is for you.
So it is causing problems for your mental health.
It is just giving it a rest.
And it can't be resolved by academic methods remember the whole is -ought thing.
I find it is the same for everything that people panic about. That the first thing they need to do is to give their mind a break.
It doesn’t matter if it is false prophecies, or climate change, or fake asteroid warnings, or complex questions about the effects of internet legislation in the USA, or cosmological questions.
It seems to work the same with everyone. They get scared, they panic, this panic leads to them not thinking logically, and the first thing that they need to do is to find a way to get a break from the material that causes this panic.
If you got scared by internet articles about antinatalism, you don't need ot read and re-read the antinatalism because you are already well versed in that.
Your mind needs a break from it.
From reading it. Not so much thinking about it but from reading other people who keep telling you how to think and what your values should be.
The main message from this blog post is that YOU get to decide what your values are.
Nobody else can tell you what your values are.
And though in theory some people who are naturalist think that it is possible to derive an ought from an is, in reality even those people are not able to do it in practice and others like Moore think it's impossible and always wil be.
So what is scaring you is that you think you have to use these philosophical ideas to set your values about life. But you don't.
Like the example I gave of someone who experiences a lot of suffering and little pleasure but thinks their life is of great value. You can't tell them that because you calculated that they had more suffering than pleasure that you have proven that their life is not of value. That makes no sense.
That's okay. This is something philosophers do a lot is find out things like that.
GETTING SUPPORT FOR YOUR PANIC
First - do you have help from a therapist?
And it is far easier to have a healthy mind if you have a healthy body and sleeping pattern
BLOG: Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears
And destress
BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
YOU DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE ANY OF THIS TONIGHT
And you don't need to resolve this tonight.
If anyone has got into philosophical crises about antinatalism or anything else there’s a great tendency to feel you have ot try to resolve this overnight, or as quickly as possible. But you can’t do that.
You are trying to resolve one of the most central and difficult problems in philosophy overnight and you think that your happiness depends on resolving it.
You are not at all likely to resolve it and you don't need to.
Nobody has ever resolved this problem. They come to solutions they think are convincing but they never manage to actually derive an ethical system from first principles. Just think philosophically it must be possible and others think it isn't. And there is no way you derive an ethical system from pure logic or that you even resolve the question of whether that is ever possible.
And even if you did and thought yo uhad a solution you then have the problem that most of the world will just ignore your supposed solution.
YOU CAN STEP BACK - YOU DON’T HAVE TO JUSTIFY THIS TO ANYONE
So it's about stepping back. It is okay to value life which is the way you think naturally if i understand right and is the wya that most people think.
And you don't have ot justify this to anyone.
You don't have to develop any calculation system or philosophy to prove it.
If you are worrying about living a good or a bad life, then you can't go far wrong if you do your best to avoid harm to self or others and where possible to help self and others.
That is a common teaching in all the main religions and ethical philosophies.
And with antinatalism, the main situation where it is of practical relevance is for a couple deciding if they want to have a child or not.
There is no point in applying it to anyone else as nobody is going ot pay any attention to your conclusions either way.
And couples often have lots of things to consider when they decide if they want to have a child together. But few worry about whether having a baby is worthwhile or not in itself 🙂
And apart from that situation, you don't need to resolve this question.
And if or when you are in that situation then you may find that the academic reasoning seems dry and irrelevant.
Antinatalism is about whether to have kids. Not about suicide.
They agree that once you are alive then you make the best of your life 🙂
If everyone somehow got convinced by antinatalism which won't happen, but hypothetically, then the world would have no more children and everyone alive today would gradually age and die and when the last one died that would be the end of the human race.
But nobody would commit suicide.
People who worry about antinatalism are usually couples worrying about whether it is right to have kids
I think it's a bit unusual to try to use philosophy to construct an ethics to live by.
You can't do it. Not really. Even philosophers don’t do that.
We see it all the time that though there are many shared values there are other things that some people value much more than others. And we can't tell people what their values have to be.
And philosophers in practice have never come up with such a system.
Even if they could, then it is pointless as nobody is going to adopt a value system derived by philosophers from first principles.
And philosophers like Moore say it is impossible.
You can try stepping back a bit.
It seems urgent to you to resolve this tonight. Otherwise, why would you be up worrying about it?
Clearly you feel this has to be resolved before you can go to sleep, in some way.
But - does it need to be resolved, at all?
Is there anything you need ot do tomorrow that depends on it?
Surely not.
For antinatalism, it only really is relevant if you need ot make a decision about having a child.
So it is of no practical relevance.
The thing is you don't need to sort this out.
You can step back a bit and let it be all right that you haven'’t solved all the problems in the world basically.
Nobody will ever be able to show if antinatalism is true or not to 100% certainty. If they did that they would have transitioned rom an is to an ought.
Some philosophers think that is impossible. Others think it may be possible. But nobody has actually done it. To resolve something that human beings have different deeply held views about using pure philosophy.
There are certain things that are universal, that everyone agrees on.
For instance on non harming, especially in its extreme forms like murder.
But there are numerous things can't be resolved and we don't all agree on.
And antinatalism is a very minority view and they can never expect to convince the world of their views. And there is no way this is going to be resolved by pure philosophical arguments.
A small minority think they shouldn't have kids and may have philosophical reasons.
Nearly everyone else greatly values human life.
We don't need to resolve this. People with both views can co-exist.
They are not even clashing vies.
The antinatalists don't have kids. The natalists have them. The antinatalists generally don't go around telling everyone else to not have kids. If they did they would be ignored.
You don't need to resolve it.
And given that you are alive you can make your life of value.
There is much you can do to make your life of value and to fulfill whatever dreams you have, help others and yourself, avoid harm to others and yourself.
I'm saying you don't have to resolve this tonight. Maybe one night at a time.
You know logically you are never going to resolve it, it's not likely you find some amazing argument that convinces the world either way.
But perhaps one step at a time. you aren't going to resolve it tonight and don't need to.
And that it is okay to be a natalist as most people are.
It is okay to be yourself. To go with what is natural to you.
You might feel you have boxed yourself in with logic.
It is about letting go of that box. Trusting the process.
And generally try doing things that help with physical and mental health and destress activities.
It is easy to forget about that when you are feeling depressed or anxious. But improving your mental health and physical health will help with things like this.
NEED A BREAK FROM UNRELIABLE SOURCES ON THE INTERNET
Of course there are reliable sources and good people on all of the social media sites and Q/A sites.
But the algorithms and searches work based on what you tend to click on and watch rather than on what's most reliable
Remember there is nobody there vetting or curating what you see.
And there is some very unreliable stuff on YouTube etc
You can try a break from them for a few days or weeks as appropriate, and you can try a new identity on Twitter / the ones that let you do that.
It depends, if you are able to change your habits and stop clicking on these kinds of videos and develop a new interest it will gradually give up and then eventually show it to you less and less.
HARD TO RECOMMEND ANY SOURCES ON THIS TOPIC - BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT JUMPING OUT OF ETHICS, AND EVEN META-ETHICS
On philosophy I often go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy but it can be very technical. But it gives me an overview.
However I have the background there to know what to look for e.g. you wouldn't think to look for the is ought debate from this probably.
Like - what you need is metaethics rather than ethics 🙂
And though philosophy fills in the background, it doesn't tell us what our values should be.
And the philosophers - they don't expect it to do that. They are philosophizing at one step back most of the time. Even "applied philosophy" is really one or two steps back from actually being used as a basis for value decisions.
Even naturalists - they don't expect to be able to tell people what their values are in reality even if they may reason that in principle it may be possible to derive ought from an is.
My debunk was really more about giving the wider context to the philosophy. So, stepping out of philosophy rather than trying to answer you within philosophy like a philosophical paper.
I went to meta-ethics and then jumped out of philosophy altogether.
To Hume when he left his chamber and the bit I wrote about that. And Saint Exupery about following ones heart
I am not sure how one would find this material without that background. It is difficult to fact check this topic.
But hopefully now I’ve written this debunk it gives others clues on how to proceed.
REMEMBER THERE IS A LOT OF NONSENSE ON THE INTERNET
Here are a couple of graphics to hopefully help people to worry a bit less about the internet nonsense they read:
Text on graphic: There are many mischievous, confused and silly people on the internet teaching you nonsense.
Graphic made using Dall-E Generated by Microsoft Copilot
Text on graphic: You are being taught nonsense on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram etc. by people who should wear a dunce's cap.
You need to find better teachers and please don't be scared by any of their bulls**t.
Graphic from: Generated by Microsoft Copilot
I DON’T WANT TO START A DEBATE ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANTINATALISM - SO DISABLED COMMENTS
There is a lot of uninformed debate about antinatalism on the internet and the point in this post is to help people scared by those discussions to get a break from it and step out of it.
This is not a philosophical blog post. It is not meant as an academic paper in any way. It is also not meant as a response to anyone else on anti-natalism. I wrote this just to help people who get scared by blog posts and videos about anti-natalism on the internet.
So I’ve disabled comments on this post for now. If you want to comment do contact me instead and I may enable comments later on if someone has something worthwhile to say to help people scared of anti-natalism to understand how philosophy works - rather than continuing the anti-natalist arguments I see in other posts and comments on the topic.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT ME AS I DON’T GET NOTIFICATIONS FOR MANY COMMENTS ON MY POSTS
If you need to talk to me about something do contact me it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages).
Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:
I usually get those messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
Want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
SHORT DEBUNKS (NEW)
I have just started a new page called “short debunks”. This has all the substantial debunks I do for the Facebook group. As you see I do many more of these, often ten a day, far too many to write them all up as blog posts., It only has the most recent short debunks, it would take ages to update it with older ones.
But if there is something scaring you in the news you may find I have debunked it here already.