It Is Immoral To Have Children | Debating The Morality Of Antinatalism

Is it Immoral to have children? Comment your position below.
Debating and discussing the morality of antinatalism with It stands to reason, delving into the rationality of reproduction and whether we should all just stop having kids.
We tackle issues such as birthing children to suffer, asymmetry an especially moral reasoning.
We touch on David Benetar and the Asymettry arguement, negative utilitarianism, negative ethics and antinatalist philosophy as a whole. To see why we shouldnt have kids from that philosophical position.
Donations:
streamlabs.com...
Patreon:
/ perspectivephilosophy
An Introduction To Western Philosophy Course : bit.ly/2VM6q97
TIP JAR 💰 paypal.me/Pers...
Book recommendations📚 www.amazon.co....
Discord: / discord

[@cjalisyas]

THE BEST EXISTENCE IS NONE EXISTENCE. KNOW LIFE, KNOW PAIN. NO LIFE, NO PAIN. ANTINATALISM.

[@Coastpsych_fi99]

[@poopoodemon7928]

Ate tofu today.

[@namenloss730]

So sorry to hear that :/

[@poopoodemon7928]

@@namenloss730 why?

[@namenloss730]

@@poopoodemon7928 well... tofu...

[@andreo4511]

Why not falafel?

[@TempehLiberation]

Haven't finished the discussion but this is pretty interesting. Nice to see a respectful discussion in this day and age.

[@MoshZombie320]

Hey PP, I notice you reference the Kantian principle of not treating people as a means to an end quite a bit, referring to it as exploitation. Do you make a distinction between means and mere means, and if so, how do you understand this distinction? Thanks.

[@scambammer6102]

it's an empty slogan. As an actor, you can't treat a person as "an end in themselves". YOU are making the judgment of what they are and should be.

[@MoshZombie320]

@@scambammer6102 Think about this a little more. Even if you are you are the one making that judgment of what they are and should be, then you can still choose to regard them as an end in themselves. You treat them as such by respecting their autonomy and dignity, and taking actions that reflect this respect. Being an agent doesn't mean looking at others only as tools.

[@josedanielcallejassandoval2964]

PP can you clarify something to me? You say you are a "conditional" natalist and that procreation should be analized on a case to case basis. So shouldn't you also be a wellfarist rather than a vegan? I can think of several scenarios where we can use animals and animal products where they benefit from coming to existence and other practices that should be banned since they cause a high degree of harm, if you aren't an antinatalist since you believe not all births are "bad" surely believing that using and killing animals is always wrong is not right (hence the wellfarist stance). Cheers!

[@patrickthomasius]

He is vegan for something more like deontological reasons, as he is not a consequentialist.

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

is it immoral to continue a species? lol. the fact is that it's not up to us whether we exist. we didn't choose to in the first place. the earth made us because that's just what she does. all the conditions that began our existence were here before we were. we could choose to die out and the earth would just set about making us again. the answer isn't to give up. the answer is to right and wrongs and fix things. the only way out is through.

[@ChowMeinChowdown]

Nobody would claim we are giving up by not procreating. On the contrary, it is the natalist's burden to justify why we should persist and put new beings in harm's way. I don't think humanity can conveniently use nature as an excuse when procreation is a voluntary process attributable to specific pairs of parents.

[@Jesterz01]

That's just it, it's not about us... Antinatalism is about the others... About the ones we bring into existence by reproducing...

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

@@Jesterz01 yes, that IS just it! if you don't feel it's wise for you to children, then definitely listen to that voice. but those who wish to continue the species and help good prevail by raising our children to destroy the ruling class .. are not doing anything wrong. quite the opposite. :) again, it's *not up to a species whether their species continues to exist*. we were made by something bigger and more powerful than we that will only make us again should we go extinct for any reason. if it's not THESE "ones we produce", it will be OTHER ones we produce.. and we don't get a say in that!

[@bw2020]

@@ChowMeinChowdownwhy is there a burden to justify a biological imperative? Do you have to justify it to yourself every time you drink a glass of water? It seems like antinatalism is the result of ethics based in rationality, which just goes to further prove that ethics are not derived from rationalism.

[@ShimmyFr]

I mean nature isn’t a sentient force that’s constantly looking to create a new humanity. It’s not guaranteed or even likely a species like us would crop up again if we voluntarily went extinct, and many anti-natalists would like for everything to go extinct, preventing the evolution of any further species.

[@perilous5107]

Didn't know you had so many tattoos. Fricken awesome

[@mells3167]

I love your profile picture!

[@davidc.arenas7032]

1:23:22 Again, if you think we're depriving people of well-being by not reproducing, to be consistent with your position you would have to be against birth control at all times and I don't think you would want to bite that bullet, or would you?

[@patrickthomasius]

You didnt really watch the whole video, he explains exactly that question and gives a reason why there are very limited and hypothethical scenarios that would lead to an obligation to have children. Man are you guys literally upvote spamming every argument because it fits your view no matter how false or nonsensical?

[@RealMonzer]

People have the right to bodily autonomy so even if someone is being deprived of well being by not being born, there is no obligation to actually create that person. Having a child requires significant resources and the use of a person’s body. Also, just because something is ethically permissible in some circumstances doesn’t mean it should be done as much as possible regardless of the circumstances.

[@davidc.arenas7032]

@@RealMonzer who talked about obligation to reproduce? Read well, before refuting a straw man fallacy you created. What is "ethically permissible", to abuse cows for cheese because "crop deaths, though"? That's a false equivalence and it's dishonest to try and justify your own participation in the exploitation and massacre of animals for cheese with something like deaths in the harvesting process of vegetables, which is basically his whole point to be an effing vegetarian.

[@ShimmyFr]

Doesn’t he frame this as very circumstantial and not universally applicable?

[@justanotherutuber3]

Whats your opinion of conservationism?humans conserve animals for their own interest, they're not putting deer with the wolfs cause deer were dying from the desire for them to do so but because people just want to look at them

[@davidc.arenas7032]

1:18:38 @perspective philosophy, you're conflating moral duty with moral virtue and you're implying that there's some kind of virtue in populating an already overpopulated planet with human beings that will have overall many more negative experiences than positive experiences. I see a very strong bias in you believing that there's somehow a balance between positive and negative experiences in a human's life which is not true even among the most privileged part of the population, but most people in the world live in poverty, overcrowded areas, have to work in jobs they do not like at all, do not live where there are good health care systems, etc, etc, etc, etc., not to mention the overall damage that their existence brings to other individuals: detergents, fuels, chemicals in their clothes, sewage wastes, food production, plastics, etc, etc, etc., that will have an overall negative effect on already existing individuals. It's like you're ignoring all that because some people might laugh 4 times a day or something that does not compensate for the overall damage. It's like willful ignorance, so to speak.

[@namenloss730]

Sounds like poor people shouldn't have children.

[@davidc.arenas7032]

@@namenloss730 who said it has to do with how much money the human who imposes life on other humans should have?

[@namenloss730]

@@davidc.arenas7032 Well, the way you worded it sounds mostly like your issue is that too many people are poor with shit lives. So I was teasing you with a strawman. Also you sound absolutely insane with "the human who imposes life on other humans". It makes you sound like an edgy emo.

[@davidc.arenas7032]

@@namenloss730 life is an imposition. Some well-known philosophers have said that long before the emo fad came about. It is an imposition because there's no consent.

[@namenloss730]

@Val interestingly you used the exact phrasing and arguments to the letter than a bunch of others, proving that you are not reasoning your position but parroting it. Good thing you people have no right to interfere in people's lives

[@CuriosityGuy]

Just loved this one mate!

[@christ.uhpher]

Hey i really like this channel but its still quite a bit over my head. Does anyone have other channels I can also get at that are slightly more dumbed down?

[@shoresofpatmos]

Loool samem yeah cosmic skeptic maybe

[@mr.godzilla9039]

Hello! Can you react to Indian Philosophies mostly Advaita Vedanta?

[@tam1438]

Does Dave have his own channel? Breeding dogs is immoral, as a vegan I’m surprised you haven’t heard of “adopt don’t shop”, have you?

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Vegan Tam? As in Tim Tam?

[@patrickthomasius]

Breeding animals for profit is not the same as letting your own animals reproduce for their own sake or because you have capacity for their offspring. I dont think veganism has by definition a problem with the latter, at least when we take the standard definition of being vegan

[@SuniRedPanda]

Very cool keep it up!

[@shoresofpatmos]

This is fascinating

[@alextrusk1713]

Are you gonna debate inmendham lol

[@ShimmyFr]

Was he calling for a debate? If PP even knows about him prob not. I mean I don’t know a ton about him but he seems like the kind of guy that would escalate a debate into a hostile argument, just based off of some of the statements I’ve heard from him.

[@cloudoftime]

Birthing dogs wouldn't be _as_ good from this position because it is creating a being which requires attention to care for, when there are already dogs who need care. It's like saying, "Potholes are bad. They _should_ be patched. So I will create more potholes and patch the ones I have created, rather than just patching the ones that are already there." ???

[@cloudoftime]

*the position of reducing suffering

[@educationalporpoises9592]

I apologize if my response is uncharitable to antinatalism. I have not had a good experience with it (I've read through a few AN reddit places and have no love for the attitude I saw), and have a strong negative bias against it, and see it as part of a larger social/philosophical problem that I see as almost entirely parasitic and harmful to life. It is moral. The only reason the Antinatalist can argue that procreation is immoral is because of insight gleaned upon them post procreation, which implies a few things. One is that there are things which are bad in life, IE, that things are not as they should be. Two is that this tends to imply that there is a good--which can only be considered in life--which, when we are deprived of them, is worth considering a tragedy. In other words, the tragedy of existence has less to do with the tragedy of existence itself or anything inherent to existence, but the absence of recognizable goods which allow us to compare our current way of living to other ways of living, or even nonexistence. In other words, the antinatalist position assumes that there is good in life that is worth not existing for if it is unlikely or impossible for one to have it. It's a sad position that will basically kill itself and be replaced by pronatalist philosophies no matter how many antinatalists there are at any given time. It also, oddly, seems to cause a collapse of tragedy into neutral categories, since nonexistence is a sort of end which may very well infinitely outlast any existence, and relies on removing the value of the very existence that allowed it to be drawn from the minds of men in the first place. Considering that it attempts to be primarily logical in order to devalue the objectives of our existence--which are very nearly always motivated not by "logic", but by interactions of our whole person--it simply doesn't hold much value, as it does not grant that we don't live to be "reasonable." I don't think antinatalism is ultimately reasonable, tenable, or helpful, but even if it were reasonable, it's a privileged missing of the point of existence. Now the pronatalist position doesn't have to be that every human that can procreate should procreate, but it may be the pronatalist (I'll just call it prohuman) position that every person who does procreate should attempt to construct the best possible life for their child, conform themselves to that experience with detachments from lesser things, and allow their own happiness to sprout from that experience. However, those who do not have the capability to provide this should not do so until they are able and willing to do so. In fact, not procreating can lead to virtue considering there is simply so much suffering in the world that should be resolved (I am actually a big fan of monasticism, partially for this reason). There isn't a universal "right" (if there is such a thing) to procreate that everyone has equal justification for participating in (maybe I'm different from other prohumans). Now, one of the problems with this conversation is that it's not easy to quantify the proper response to suffering which would lead to the most fulfilling existence, but there are plenty of people who have suffered life and made the best because of, or despite, it. Usually this has to do with pursuing the good in existence for others, independent of your own desires, and with total disregard for fear of suffering. But this isn't exclusively the case. There are plenty of nonphilosophical, "unreasonable", but superior ways to manage pain, and usually pain is the only ship which sails us to appreciation and love of existence and higher things. I am friends with an African fellow who has very little, is relatively uneducated, has experienced tragic miscarriages along with his wife, and in general is surrounded by a lot of suffering. Nearly very day we exchange a word or two. He runs two orphanages, helps the kids get scholarships, food, housing, a number of other things. He very much loves his only child. He eats four days out of every week, partially for religious reasons, and partially because of lack. He would likely understand the sort of pain which motivates antinatalism moreso than any antinatalist, and yet would disagree with it more strongly than most. Perhaps the antinatalist would call him weak and accuse him of keeping optimism as a form of coping (I have seen antinatalists claim that their position is the most admirable because it is brave enough to detach themselves from the human instinct to procreate. I strongly disagree). I cannot speak for him, but I do not get the impression that sacrificing what he does for who he does is any sign of philosophical weakness, because he has more important things to prioritize than despair.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

Quote: *"I apologize if my response is uncharitable to antinatalism."* Response: Well that's a first, nobody does that sort of thing. Quote: *"and see it as part of a larger social/philosophical problem that I see as almost entirely parasitic and harmful to life."* Response: What problem, and what's your plan, as a pro-natalist christian I bet, to even solve it? Life itself is parasitic and harmful, life creates need, pain and suffering, and it creates creatures to cause it. So for you to idolize life is to idolize everything life creates and maintains. We antinatalists are against life for it's intrinsic absurdity. Also realize that we're fundamentally atheist, we don't believe any god exists.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

Quote: *"It is moral."* Response: NO, its not because it creates an unnecessary risk of wasted harm for no objective, constructive benefit. Also realize this: to say natalism is moral is to say that ANY sort of evil person having kids for ANY sort of malicious reason is moral. To be pro-natalist is to support anybody who wants to have a kid for any reason at all.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

Quote: *"In other words, the tragedy of existence has less to do with the tragedy of existence itself or anything inherent to existence, but the absence of recognizable goods which allow us to compare our current way of living to other ways of living, or even nonexistence."* Response: No, existence itself is tragic. Life is struggling to maintain homeostasis and then dying. We are in a constant state of working to maintain our bodies, instead of being constantly healthy all the time with no want. And its that nature which allows much of the suffering in the world. Quote: *"It's a sad position that will basically kill itself and be replaced by pronatalist philosophies no matter how many antinatalists there are at any given time."* Response: No, a valid philosophy doesn't die off. Atheism is a valid viewpoint that science demonstrates is rational, yet most of humanity is theistic or spiritual. That doesn't mean that atheism is destined to die off, so your silly claim is a distortion of reality. Another example, most people are optimistic, yet pessimism has persisted throughout many ages. Why hasn't pessimism died off yet, leaving all of humanity with a general positive attitude then, by now?

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

Quote: *"I don't think antinatalism is ultimately reasonable, tenable, or helpful, but even if it were reasonable, it's a privileged missing of the point of existence."* Response: You're wrong as usual. We're reasonable because we're LITERALLY willing to reason with people through argumentation. We're tenable for the same reason. We're helpful because though NON procreation, less evil and malicious people will exist in the world and more reasources will be available for people who need them. More space and real estate as well. With more people comes more problems, you are welcome to experience having to deal with EVERY sort of evil person that nature can possibly create. We don't' want to deal with that. There is no point of existence, life exists as a happenstance result of physics.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

Quote: *"However, those who do not have the capability to provide this should not do so until they are able and willing to do so."* Response: That's not going to stop corrupt people and delusional people from having kids and abusing them until law enforcement just so happens to catch them. And that's just in a society where there's strong law enforcement. Your side doesn't account for the abusers in the world. Your side allows them to fester and create more problems. Its disgusting. Quote: *"There are plenty of nonphilosophical, "unreasonable", but superior ways to manage pain, and usually pain is the only ship which sails us to appreciation and love of existence and higher things."* Response: That's just a crazy assumption on your part. Why don't you give a coherent example of that? How would severe childhood abuse make someone better in any sense? AND if it does, then that would JUSTIFY the abuse then! Why not cause harm if harm causes people to be stronger and better then?

[@ilovenature9077]

It is immoral for the environment!

[@nwgverified]

It is immoral

[@lettersnstuff]

ok so here’s a question for Antinatalists: Evolutionary Biologists have this concept called LUCA the Last Universal Common Ancestor, the creature from which all life on earth is descended, some 4 billion years ago. if, hypothetically, scientists found a way to identify LUCA, could pinpoint its location in both space and time, and could somehow send you back in time to meet it, do you have an affirmative moral obligation to kill LUCA? thus preventing all future suffering? it’s a unicellular bacterial organism, it’s not sentient, it can’t feel pain, killing it is basically the same as killing bacteria when you wash your hands, right? all the beings that would descend from it can’t give or withhold consent to being prevented from existing, they don’t exist yet, it’s 4 billion years ago. if we ignore paradoxes, if we put the ethics of robloxing yourself to one side for the moment, do you have the obligation to prevent the entirety of the collective of human suffering?

[@WarhawkLieutenent]

Yes

[@lettersnstuff]

@@WarhawkLieutenent neat

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

Absolutely, removing the LUCA would prevent all the wasted suffering that would happen. And life doesn't create any objective value in the universe anyway, so it would be a rational decision. Life's hedonism doesn't need to exist in the world.

[@Bert86]

If you believe in objective morality why is there a need for any debate? If its objective there is only one truth

[@troubledsharpie1360]

If science is objective then why publish studies which explain scientific truth?

[@harryevans4513]

Amazing discussion. I could understand both of the positions clearly without strawman, and could clearly see that both the debaters took time to understand each other's position without frustration. Coming into this, I have been leaning towards the anti-natalist position (still had some open questions for the logic, but had intuitive/emotional judgements for it). PP's take seems to make more sense to me at the end, but also, not enough knowledge to completely abandon my 'leaning'.

[@mauzki-]

free the jellyfish you monster

[@lymmy9609]

Not real bruv

[@davidc.arenas7032]

1:28:36 @perspective philosophy, now you're falling into the non-vegan argument of "these animals wouldn't be alive if we didn't breed them" as if breeding them was some kind of virtue. Do you see the inconsistency here?

[@patrickthomasius]

There are several reasons why these arguments are not analogous. They would perhaps be more analogous if you bred kids to sell them to work, which surely PP would not affirm to, even if they where experiencing more pleasure than pain. Breeding animals to sell them (pets) or for farming is not analogous to PPs view on procreation, for obvious (deontological) reasons

[@davidc.arenas7032]

@@patrickthomasius if one reason for procreating is more selfish than other that doesn't automatically remove the unethical implications of the latter. Also, your ad populum fallacy is irrelevant. There's no intrinsic value in reproducing sentient beings, only selfish motivations with a lot of unavoidable negative consequences, which can't be justified by saying, "but they're alive because of those selfish motivations".

[@patrickthomasius]

@@davidc.arenas7032 im not sure what you are talking about, do you know what an ad populum is? The rest of your reply just begs the question, read a study for reasons for procreative choices that people give, or something that isnt negative utilitarianism. Obviously the answer and your question about PPs views were about deontology, so im not sure why you ignore the basic principles of deontology. You seem to not understand deontology, so you might check out the SEP on this.

[@LouisGedo]

*Antinatalism 4 the Win!* 👍 🏆

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Of all persons, vegans (especially CONSERVATIVE vegans) ought to reproduce. :)

[@LouisGedo]

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Well......it's about 15 years too late for that for me as I had a vasectomy back when I was like 41 years old.........and no offspring prior to that.

[@poopoodemon7928]

Yo mama.

[@mrsneverlessfun]

What do you think about the story of the ones who walk away from Omelas?

[@joenathan8059]

In today's society I wouldn't have children. 1st or 3rd world it's just not stable anymore. I also see it as a form of rebellion.knowing that less and less people are going into the work force will make the upper class reconsider their treatment towards us at least in America

[@alison9189]

💯💯

[@billjones3868]

No comments with 2724 views?

[@KurokamiNajimi]

Yes

[@grnhy]

It is 100% immoral.

[@username5502]

I completely agree. Especially how the world is now.

[@mariaradulovic3203]

I don't know if it is immoral but it's definitely unethical.

[@veganatheistandmore]

"The impossibility to obtain consent to inflict harms isn't a justification to impose them anyway, especially when there is no harm involved in not creating someone. In fact, procreation is exactly the case in which there shouldn't be a doubt that we mustn't act in ways that might harmfully affect someone without consent, since not procreating is the surest way not to harm someone without consent." Taken from "International Efilism" channel.

[@KurokamiNajimi]

The case by case argument doesn’t work because it’s impossible to accurately gauge how good or bad someone’s life will be. It is however guaranteed that if people keep reproducing that there will be many who experience immense suffering either physically or mentally. Does a million people’s enjoyment justify one person’s misfortune?

[@patrickthomasius]

Yes, usually it does,unless the one person is harmed or used as a means to an end for the rest

[@KurokamiNajimi]

@@patrickthomasius They are being harmed and used by default because that’s what it takes for others to come into a relatively good life

[@gazagxrlx2974]

Exactly, look what some people have to go through just because others want to be parents

[@grilla4464]

I wouldn't say it's impossible. There are standards of living we can use to evaluate the quality of life an individual will likely experience in relation to their material, sociopolitical, and cultural conditions. I agree that it's never 100% but we can make approximations. The underlying question is whether or not we're justified in having children in the face of any degree of uncertainty, and I'm unsure of that myself.

[@KurokamiNajimi]

@@grilla4464 I mean it’s theoretically possible to have all the right cards and then get kidnapped and tortured. Forgetting about that you could also be someone who just doesn’t enjoy life for whatever reason(s). We could debate about what threshold of non well being vs well being is enough

[@occamsblunderbuss]

Is there anything more cringe than philosophy? What a waste of fucking time. Let's take extremely simple, common sense ideas and apply ludicrous, verbose labels to them.

[@educationalporpoises9592]

There's plenty of philosophy out there that is good, necessary, and helpful. This does not seem to be one of them.

[@enlightenednormie242]

For A Misanthrope such as myself, I Endorse Anti-Natalism Wholeheartedly 😅🌹

[@namenloss730]

And socialists wonder why people don't like them XD

[@scambammer6102]

@@namenloss730 ^ thinks anti-natalism is socialist. That must explain the free child care. Derp.

[@namenloss730]

@@scambammer6102 the rose at the end of the comment tends to indicate socialist yes. And weird how anti natalists seem to be almost exclusively far left ideologues.

[@scambammer6102]

@@namenloss730 " anti natalists seem to be almost exclusively far left ideologues." Prove it. I'm a socialist and definitely not AN. The whole point of socialism is to create a better world for people.

[@namenloss730]

@@scambammer6102 I said "most AN seem to be socialists" not "all socialists seem to be AN". Basic logic man... It's not complicated... The whole point of socialism is believing you already know the path to utopia

[@judahmierau7450]

Is having kids to take care of you when you're older, have a more fulfilling life and for companionship justification for the suffering of the child? Damn straight, as a child myself I'm eternally grateful my parents gave me life. Suffering is not the only input in moral calculus - vegans and atheists have a hard time understanding this.

[@davidc.arenas7032]

1:15:34 we do not have obligations to CREATE any individual just so they can have some positive experiences, if that was the case, birth control would be immoral. Would you take that position?