created by DatabaseHoliday1278 on 13/07/2024 at 18:01 UTC
88 upvotes, 62 top-level comments (showing 25)
I never planned to have kids but learning about antinatalism made me question if my life is worth living and I've just been depressed ever since. So I'm wondering if there's any ACTUAL argument against it. I don't think so but I'll ask.
Comment by as-well at 13/07/2024 at 20:57 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Reddit hiccup means I can't ban you right now (thanks spez) but I'll come for you. Like, learns, dude
Comment by 2ndmost at 13/07/2024 at 18:03 UTC
315 upvotes, 1 direct replies
No. They won philosophy.
Comment by GE_Moorepheus at 13/07/2024 at 18:23 UTC
143 upvotes, 3 direct replies
If you want an unironic answer, you should go to r/askphilosophy
Comment by [deleted] at 13/07/2024 at 18:31 UTC
107 upvotes, 2 direct replies
it's really gay
Comment by kingturgidprose at 13/07/2024 at 18:03 UTC
68 upvotes, 1 direct replies
No. Im just glad Im an american and not of those poor 3rd worlders!! theyve never even had szechuan mcnugget sauce....
Comment by Shitgenstein at 13/07/2024 at 18:09 UTC
107 upvotes, 2 direct replies
If you thought /r/badphilosophy is the place to ask, your judgment is too poor to assess arguments. Good luck out there.
Comment by redlotus70 at 13/07/2024 at 18:26 UTC
93 upvotes, 2 direct replies
You know those crazy death cults from those scifi and fantasy novels
Comment by karama_zov at 13/07/2024 at 18:46 UTC
109 upvotes, 6 direct replies
Is there an argument against suicide? Antinatalists are just sad people who want to debate everyone else into being sad.
My argument is that I love my son a lot.
Comment by pipe-bomb at 13/07/2024 at 18:35 UTC
69 upvotes, 3 direct replies
It can veer pretty quickly into eugenics territory and ignores a lot of sociopolitical context which can be highly problematic. Think about the stereotypes of who is having too many kids then ask yourself why.
Comment by Drakeytown at 13/07/2024 at 19:04 UTC
22 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I feel like your use of the word "actual" here is a convenient way to dismiss any argument that might be made. Bad faith.
Comment by EffectiveSalamander at 13/07/2024 at 20:22 UTC
22 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Benatar's asymmetry argument relies on comparing on treating the non-existent person as if they have a well-being which can be compared to anything. But non-existent people have no well-being at all - not good, not bad, not neutral. Non-existent people are just mental placeholders, their well being is null, and null values can't be compared to anything. Thus it's not meaningful to say that anyone would be better off not existing. A person who exists and is not suffering isn't anything like the non-sufferring of the non-existent person. When people say they want to end suffering they don't usually mean to for people capable of suffering to cease to exist.
Anti-natalists claim it's wrong to make a decision for the non-existent person because they can't consent. There are a couple problems with this. One is that the decision not to have children is itself making a decision for a non-existent person. Another is that it ignores the virtual universal moral position that parents make decisions for children until they are capable of making their own decisions.
Comment by SerbianWarCrimes at 13/07/2024 at 19:22 UTC
17 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I can’t find it but antinatilism is that meme of the guy screaming at the crowd, the crowd acknowledges him with a thumbs up, and then goes back to ignoring him. Like yeah sure your life is meaningless and you shouldn’t pass on your genes, anyways.
Comment by HidingImmortal at 13/07/2024 at 20:21 UTC
8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
learning about antinatalism made me question if my life is worth living and I've just been depressed ever since
If the results of something leave you depressed, maybe steer away from that thing.
Comment by [deleted] at 14/07/2024 at 01:32 UTC
8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
There's a few reasons off the top of my head. Firstly, just because suffering is inevitable doesn't mean happiness can't trump it. Take, for example, a sick child that dies at the age of 4 -- their physical pain from their ailment, no matter how severe, can easily be overwhelmed by the joy that comes from a loving family and community. Humans are hardwired to get massive pleasure from positive interactions from other people. If that sick child is constantly being held, kissed, sung to, played with, encouraged, and the like, then how is their short, painful life not worth it when they were surrounded with love? Obviously, being loved is unfortunately not a guarantee, but its current lack is not inevitable. It is truly amazing how much a little love and kindness can make a life worth living.
Secondly, antinatalists often say things like "humans are a plague to nature and the planet." The obvious retort is that humans *are* a part of nature, and that plenty of other forms of life have been and are currently massively destructive without any human interference. The idea that humans are somehow separate from the rest of life is a belief that belies so much of philosophy (not all philosophies, obviously) yet has no real backing. We shape the environment, but so does everything else -- hence the entire field of ecology. Humans are not inherently destructive nor productive. You can find endless examples of humans taking care of the land, manipulating the land, and destroying the land. I find that antinatalists have little knowledge of biology, especially symbiosis, and end up just going "humans shouldn't exist because (most) humans (right now) are destroying the planet." They also do nothing to combat anything they complain about, but I digress. (I draw primarily from ideas in the books *Braiding Sweetgrass* by Robin Wall Kimmerer, *Entangled Life* by Merlin Sheldrake, and the later parts of *1491* by Charles C Mann. These books are not necessarily philosophy books, but all books argue, intentionally or not, for a set of philosophical beliefs.)
Thirdly, antinatalists argue that there is no ethical reason for humans to exist. But... there's no ethical reason for anything to exist. It's a reductive belief that has as much value as solipsism (i.e. none). Cool, there is nothing you can say that definitively proves humans should continue as a species -- that goes for any species. There is no ethical argument for oak trees to exist, for example. Even if every tree got zapped out of existence, that ecological niche would be filled and life would go on. Yeah, sure, if humans never existed, life would go on, but even if humans bring about total environmental annihilation, life would still go on and eventually adapt to what we left behind. Shit, even if the solar system were destroyed, the universe would go on. Whether any of that should or should not exist is moot. They do exist, and we as humans give meaning to that existence. Really, you don't even have to go that far to disprove this argument. Nothing in philosophy is definitive -- that's the whole point of philosophy. You can't definitively prove the ethics of anything.
I'm sure there are longer, more carefully articulated rejections of antinatalism (I didn't even touch on how it almost instantly turns into eugenics), but hopefully this gives you an idea on why it is constantly clowned on.
TL;DR antinatalists are right and we should kill all babies
Comment by jacisue at 13/07/2024 at 19:57 UTC
6 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The finitude of life is what gives it a contextual value. If we all lived forever with no pain or worries then life itself would never even come up.
Comment by JennyPaperz at 13/07/2024 at 21:05 UTC
8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Antinatalism, in my view and from my understanding, comes from the fact that society kinda sucks and has for a while now. If you view having kids from a neutral perspective, then the antinatal argument falls apart. Not only because a child possesses no moralistic leanings, but because the immorality is hypothetical. “This kid will be traumatized” is not technically true as it is not guaranteed, although likely. “I’m subjecting my kid to this society.” Now that IS true, but then the argument becomes conditional antinatalism, contingent on the child being forced to life in an unequal society in which they will be exploited. It’s also important to note that while yes, life contains bad things, it’s not all bad. There is happiness and love and laughter and reasons to continue to experience the world. I often find many antinatalists to be cynics about the world, stating that a glass is empty since it’s full of water and the water is clear. Not all, but a great many (at least in my generation of Gen Z)
Comment by quietfellaus at 13/07/2024 at 19:43 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
If seeking serious replies, inquire elsewhere. Otherwise, I suggest therapy with a healthy dose of antidepressants and cat videos. Those should offer sufficient argument.
Comment by Klutzy-Bag3213 at 13/07/2024 at 18:20 UTC
42 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The argument against antinatalism is pretty obvious. Life is a net-positive.
Comment by ScoopyHiggins at 13/07/2024 at 18:49 UTC
26 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Being so depressed that you don’t value life and think nobody should be allowed to have children is an anomaly.
Comment by InTheAbstrakt at 13/07/2024 at 18:14 UTC
28 upvotes, 7 direct replies
I think the best way to win against an anti-Natalist (and vegans for that matter) is just to concede that they are actually right, but you just don’t care because you’re selfish.
AN: having kids is selfish
You: I agree
AN: good, so you won’t be having kids?
You: no I’m still going to have kids
AN: Why? You just told me that you agree that it’s selfish
You: yes, I am selfish
Comment by [deleted] at 14/07/2024 at 02:02 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Antinatalism is just nihilism for babies. It's just people intellectualising not wanting kids.
Comment by ZLTM at 13/07/2024 at 19:41 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Post modern death cult
Comment by Big_brown_house at 13/07/2024 at 18:27 UTC
18 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yeah the argument is “omg baby so cuteeee 🥰 lmao squeaky toys ahaa”
The most famous proponent of this argument was Albert Einstein.
Comment by sheepshoe at 13/07/2024 at 20:30 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yeah, you just need to deny their presupposition that all suffering is necessarily evil. Eventually you can criticize their consequentialist approach to ethics.
Comment by PaleoJohnathan at 13/07/2024 at 18:04 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yea. Evil people argue against it.,, I don’t make the rules antinatalism does…