Hi everyone.
Antinatalism is a philosophy which basically says that procreation
is morally wrong or at least very problematic.
There are a lot of books and articles about this subject and many sophisticated arguments in defence of it. But In this topic I want to suggest a simple argument which in my opinion makes the act of procreation a very problematic one. It is called The Consent Argument.
The Consent Argument basically claims that having children is morally wrong because we cannot get the consent of the future child about entering life, and since it is impossible to get this consent, procreation is a kind of imposition and imposing a life on others is morally wrong.
This argument is more convincing when we consider the fact that the world we want to bring a child into (without the possibility of their consent) is full of pains and sufferings, including physical pains such as diseases, cancers, rapes, tortures, bullying, and also mental sufferings such as depression, despair, loneliness etc. Add to these the wars, corrupt governments, poverty, old age, painful death … and you would agree that this world is full of bad moments that can happen to your child throughout their lives. So you are responsible for their sufferings, because you were the one who started their lives in the first place.
One possible objection to the consent argument is that by abstaining from reproduction we also deprive our children of the joys in life. My answer is that you don’t have any duty to impose joys on your children, so if you don’t do it, you haven’t done anything wrong. But one the other hand if you do bring someone into this world and they happen to have a very bad life, you have done a totally wrong thing. I would also say that in so far as quality is concerned, pains and sufferings tend to be more intense and usually longer than joys, just imagine the worst possible pain and the best possible joy on earth. I think they are definitely incomparable.
To explain my position better, let me give you an example. Suppose there is an island that contains both good and bad and the bad experiences can be very intense. So if you invite someone to this island and explain to them the situation, they are free to accept your invitation or refuse it. But if you bring someone to this island by force, the island in which the only way to escape it is death, you have done a wrong thing by imposing that situation and you cannot justify your action by pointing to the good experiences in the island. I hope my point here is clear, the island of course is a metaphor of life and its good and bad experieneces, and in case the bad experiences outweigh the good ones, and the person hates it and wishes to end it, the only real escape from this island/life is death. When doing something that can involve someone else’s pain and suffering, and you cannot get their consent, the default should be not doing it. We all know a lot of relevant cases in everyday life and a few exceptions don’t harm the general rule.
The consent argument says that no matter what, imposing life on someone without the possibility of their consent is deeply problematic. Imagine your child will ask you this question: mom, dad, why did you bring me into this world, I hate my life and I wish I was never born. I didn’t ask for it. Why did you then selfishly impose this life on me? What will you really answer? Can you give a proper answer at all?
I think bringing a child into this world is a risky gamble and I personally would never do that, out of compassion and love for my children. If I want to experience parenthood, there are millions of orphans around the world who are already here and I can adopt a few of them, instead of adding more lives to this already overpopulated earth.
You don’t have to necessarily agree with me, but please think about it, imposing life on your children is a very important matter which unfortunately most people don’t even consider it and never take into account the potential risks and harms that can happen to their children.
So please ask yourself: what if my children will find their lives unsatisfactory? What if they will ask me why did I impose life on them? Do you think it is worth it and morally justifiable to impose life on others without their consent? I don’t think so.
