pull down to refresh
114 sats \ 4 replies \ @grayruby 23h \ on: Is choosing not to have kids the most ethical act today? AskSN
It is ethical to not have kids if you don't want kids and you will be a shit parent to them. It is ethical to have kids if you want to have children and will care for them and do everything in your power to give them a good childhood.
I find both the "With the world facing climate collapse, rising authoritarianism, economic precarity, and growing mental health crises, more people are questioning the assumption that having children is inherently good." and the "coming into existence is always a harm, that while the absence of pain is good even if no one experiences it, the absence of pleasure is only bad if someone is deprived of it." arguments totally moronic.
And since we can't survey unfertilized eggs to see if they hope to be fertilized and become humans the whole idea of "I didn't ask to be born" is pretty friggin stupid too.
The world is full of people who would be better off not being born into situations where they’ll suffer.
When we talk about things like climate collapse, authoritarianism, etc, it's not just some vague concern - it's happening. The choice to bring children into a world like that is a serious one. If you choose to bring a child to the world, but you live in a socialist shithole, for example, that's not very nice.
And about the 'I didn't ask to be born' idea, it's not about asking for permission, but about the ethics of creating someone who has no control over their existence. We can't survey potential lives, but it doesn’t invalidate the argument that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't assume it’s always right to bring someone into the world when it's filled with so much suffering. Almost never is.
reply
The world is also full of people born into situations where they'll suffer and they overcome that suffering to have fulfilling and joyful lives. The world is also full of people born into good situations. It is impossible to have a life with no suffering.
Besides the people in the situations you are talking about are not the ones questioning having kids. It is primarily privileged westerners.
"the ethics of creating someone who has no control over their existence". They have no control over having been born (existing) but once they are are old enough to be self sufficient they have control over what they can do with their existence and they can choose to end it if they like.
reply
It is primarily privileged Westerners
Some of the biggest antinatalist movements are actually in India and China.
And they can choose to end it if they like
But if they choose to, surpassing the instincts of self-preservation, it’s not very easy or painless to opt out (lol). I’m kind of on the side of natalism these days because I must believe that there is hope in life, but the antinatalist arguments are much more convincing.
Thanks for the responses, I will think more about the theme.
reply
It is primarily privileged WesternersSome of the biggest antinatalist movements are actually in India and China.
There are numerous ways to expand the debate about anti-natalism. For instance, scholars of religion have had little to say about anti-natalism, but it is unclear that they can completely dismiss certain of these arguments out of hand. Additionally, the debate about anti-natalism has primarily been conducted within the context of Western philosophy. It is an open question how the arguments for anti-natalism would be evaluated by various non-Western ethical theories. Finally, environmental ethics and population ethics have had little to say about anti-natalism, and as such there are many avenues for further exploration.
b. Anti-Natalism and Non-Western EthicsThe philosophical literature on anti-natalism is dominated by those working in Western philosophy.
Is your own source not contradicting you?
reply