Thanks, that's an interesting challenge. But I think it's misleading to present it as happy people exploiting miserable people by bringing them into existence. I don't think anyone ever deliberately creates a miserable child! What's going on is rather that life is a gamble.
Every morning we wake up, there's a (hopefully tiny) risk that so…
Thanks, that's an interesting challenge. But I think it's misleading to present it as happy people exploiting miserable people by bringing them into existence. I don't think anyone ever deliberately creates a miserable child! What's going on is rather that life is a gamble.
Every morning we wake up, there's a (hopefully tiny) risk that something awful could happen to us. But most of us think that risk is worth taking. We don't want to die, just because our future isn't *guaranteed* to be good. We're willing to take our chances (and vigorously guard against risks that threaten to end our lives prematurely). And many of us -- I think reasonably and even generously -- decide to extend that gamble to our children, to give them a chance at life too. Even though it isn't guaranteed to work out, we think it's worth the shot.
It's tragic that sometimes the gamble fails, and some people (extremely few, I hope) end up so miserable that their life is "worse than nothing". In some cases, they may be able to mitigate the damage by voluntarily ending their life. (I think physician-assisted suicide should be available to aid those who are not physically capable of implementing the decision for themselves.) But sad as it is, this tragedy is like nothing compared to how tragic it would be for all the goodness in the world to cease to be -- to end all love, music, beauty, and knowledge; all striving, determination, creativity, and discovery; all gratitude, mentorship, kindness, and companionship. I'm more than willing to endure a proportionate share of sadness in exchange for a proportionate share of the great goods in life, and I would think it a kind of cowardice to choose otherwise.
We should certainly do what we can to prevent great harms from occurring in future, only... taking care not to equally prevent all that is good.
"I am very excited to speak with someone willing to provide philosophical pushback. The argument is solid, but I don't agree with the central premise. I don't think there is as much happiness and goods in life as is claimed. I think that a lot of the things we think we do in order to become happier, we actually do to avoid suffering from the deprivation.
For example:
1. We do not eat just for pleasure, but to prevent hunger. The fundamental thing about a meal is to calm hunger.
2. We do not have sex solely for pleasure but to avoid the pain caused by the frustration of unresolved sexual tension.
3. We do not look for a companion just for being happy together but also for not being sad and lonely.
4. We do not go on vacation once a year to a distant country only to enjoy new experiences, exotic foods, and paradisiacal places, but to avoid the boredom and frustration of staying in the usual city, always doing the same.
If I became convinced that people do the majority of their life activities in pursuit of happiness, pleasure, or eudaimonia and not because they want to avoid suffering associated with not doing said activities, then I would concede that antinatalism is philosophically undermined."
I find that argument puzzling, because a far more effective way to avoid frustration, hunger, etc., is to simply kill oneself, and yet most of us clearly have no wish to do that. The fact that we're still alive, and (more or less) happy to be alive, shows that we value positive things and not just the avoidance of negative things.
At root, the core question is just: "Is life worth it, all things considered?" We shouldn't assume that the answer will be the same for everyone. If someone's answer is "no," then that's really sad (for their sake) to hear. But obviously many of us answer more positively.
On the assumption that attitudes here are to some extent hereditary, it seems a good rule of thumb would be for miserable people to refrain from reproducing, and for people who are happy with their lives to go ahead and have kids (if they want to). I certainly wouldn't want to pressure an anti-natalist to change their personal decisions around reproduction. That's their choice. But I guess I do think it's irresponsible for them to discourage happier people from having kids, just based on their own personal experiences being negative. People vary!
Thanks, that's an interesting challenge. But I think it's misleading to present it as happy people exploiting miserable people by bringing them into existence. I don't think anyone ever deliberately creates a miserable child! What's going on is rather that life is a gamble.
Every morning we wake up, there's a (hopefully tiny) risk that something awful could happen to us. But most of us think that risk is worth taking. We don't want to die, just because our future isn't *guaranteed* to be good. We're willing to take our chances (and vigorously guard against risks that threaten to end our lives prematurely). And many of us -- I think reasonably and even generously -- decide to extend that gamble to our children, to give them a chance at life too. Even though it isn't guaranteed to work out, we think it's worth the shot.
It's tragic that sometimes the gamble fails, and some people (extremely few, I hope) end up so miserable that their life is "worse than nothing". In some cases, they may be able to mitigate the damage by voluntarily ending their life. (I think physician-assisted suicide should be available to aid those who are not physically capable of implementing the decision for themselves.) But sad as it is, this tragedy is like nothing compared to how tragic it would be for all the goodness in the world to cease to be -- to end all love, music, beauty, and knowledge; all striving, determination, creativity, and discovery; all gratitude, mentorship, kindness, and companionship. I'm more than willing to endure a proportionate share of sadness in exchange for a proportionate share of the great goods in life, and I would think it a kind of cowardice to choose otherwise.
We should certainly do what we can to prevent great harms from occurring in future, only... taking care not to equally prevent all that is good.
This is what she sent to me!
"I am very excited to speak with someone willing to provide philosophical pushback. The argument is solid, but I don't agree with the central premise. I don't think there is as much happiness and goods in life as is claimed. I think that a lot of the things we think we do in order to become happier, we actually do to avoid suffering from the deprivation.
For example:
1. We do not eat just for pleasure, but to prevent hunger. The fundamental thing about a meal is to calm hunger.
2. We do not have sex solely for pleasure but to avoid the pain caused by the frustration of unresolved sexual tension.
3. We do not look for a companion just for being happy together but also for not being sad and lonely.
4. We do not go on vacation once a year to a distant country only to enjoy new experiences, exotic foods, and paradisiacal places, but to avoid the boredom and frustration of staying in the usual city, always doing the same.
If I became convinced that people do the majority of their life activities in pursuit of happiness, pleasure, or eudaimonia and not because they want to avoid suffering associated with not doing said activities, then I would concede that antinatalism is philosophically undermined."
I find that argument puzzling, because a far more effective way to avoid frustration, hunger, etc., is to simply kill oneself, and yet most of us clearly have no wish to do that. The fact that we're still alive, and (more or less) happy to be alive, shows that we value positive things and not just the avoidance of negative things.
At root, the core question is just: "Is life worth it, all things considered?" We shouldn't assume that the answer will be the same for everyone. If someone's answer is "no," then that's really sad (for their sake) to hear. But obviously many of us answer more positively.
On the assumption that attitudes here are to some extent hereditary, it seems a good rule of thumb would be for miserable people to refrain from reproducing, and for people who are happy with their lives to go ahead and have kids (if they want to). I certainly wouldn't want to pressure an anti-natalist to change their personal decisions around reproduction. That's their choice. But I guess I do think it's irresponsible for them to discourage happier people from having kids, just based on their own personal experiences being negative. People vary!
This is a great and very inspiring response! I will be sure to tell her about it. Thanks!