I Believe Having Children Is "Immoral" (Aka: Any Antinatalists Here? )
- Thread starter Bounceounce
- Start date
- Status
Airola
Member
Well, I guess when you are in your deathbed in your 80s or 90s or whenever, most of those friends might've already passed away or they are being on their deathbeds as well.
I know that. However, there's not a slither of morality in any of the things you say in this thread. I don't mind if it's your personal creed, it's just important that you realize this isn't morality. There's nothing inherently bad or good about being born, and you cannot attribute that to anything. You're continuously blending the lines, here. You say it is about considering the implications of having a child, and when I say that the right thing, the moral thing, to do in that case is to fight to give your child a good life, you say that it's about having been born in the first place. It's a pseudo-intellectual idea that makes no sense. You're attributing things in a vague place, and when I point to where you say it is, you say it's somewhere else. If you want to clarify on how it is not about consent, and how it's not about the child being happy or not, what then remains good or bad about being born.
It's amoral to be born. It is kind of the definition of amorality. If you've found some sort of way to not have to deal with the issues of having to care for a child or make sure things go well for that child, then have that as your creed. But it's not your moral code. It doesn't pertain to morality. As Alienous excellently points out below, you're trying to flip the Hippocratic oath upside down, and make it a call to morality, however you've made no supporting arguments of that.
Generally we treat matters with the idea of life being desired, even when there is an inability to consent. If someone gets into a motor-vehicle accident nobody makes the argument of "let's not hook them up to life support - they might not consent to that".
So, I'm wondering, what's the guiding principle behind treating conception differently? Why would an inability to consent mean a "no" rather than a "yes" to life?
So, I'm wondering, what's the guiding principle behind treating conception differently? Why would an inability to consent mean a "no" rather than a "yes" to life?
tryagainlater
Member
The consent angle really doesn't work. I will admit as someone who hates himself and wishes he had never been born, I do feel resentment towards my parents but I do realise that's just me projecting my own self hatred onto them.
But yes, I do feel I shouldn't have kids because there's a decent chance they'll suffer from whatever I'm suffering from and also wish they had never been born. I can't know for certain if they well but there's enough reason to presume. I've been thinking about getting a vasectomy but I'll probably just end up killing myself anyway.
All that said, the world is heading for some shitty times so it may be wrong to bring a new generation into that.
But yes, I do feel I shouldn't have kids because there's a decent chance they'll suffer from whatever I'm suffering from and also wish they had never been born. I can't know for certain if they well but there's enough reason to presume. I've been thinking about getting a vasectomy but I'll probably just end up killing myself anyway.
All that said, the world is heading for some shitty times so it may be wrong to bring a new generation into that.
Shitty times is what we fight against. It's not when we die.
On another note, I hope you're getting help in the feelings you're having. If you need someone to talk to, or just want to say whatever to, you're free to hit me up with a PM. I am troubled by the things you said, and I care about your well-being.
Oh man, Monty Python would write a great sketch about this.
Im not reading this giant ass thread all the way.
All I know is, the OP sounds weird as fuck to me. I mean the idea, not the poster. I'm a straight dude with a life partner. We don't believe in marriage. Her parents have been together for 35 years without being married. That's another subject for another thread. We do want to have a kid. One. We're both single children. But the way shit is going down... makes me question more and more if we should. It's a talk we've been having. Ultimately we likely will have -one- child. I have many gay friends who mock me, calling me a breeder. I find it amusing. It'll probably insult a bunch of ppl here, as will our non-marriage, but we don't care. My thought is that it isn't yet immoral to have a single kid but it may well become so. Having a ton of kids isn't the best idea... for the world.
All I know is, the OP sounds weird as fuck to me. I mean the idea, not the poster. I'm a straight dude with a life partner. We don't believe in marriage. Her parents have been together for 35 years without being married. That's another subject for another thread. We do want to have a kid. One. We're both single children. But the way shit is going down... makes me question more and more if we should. It's a talk we've been having. Ultimately we likely will have -one- child. I have many gay friends who mock me, calling me a breeder. I find it amusing. It'll probably insult a bunch of ppl here, as will our non-marriage, but we don't care. My thought is that it isn't yet immoral to have a single kid but it may well become so. Having a ton of kids isn't the best idea... for the world.
Consider the plot of idiocracy. Those who are reasonable have few kids, those who aren't have many. It makes the morality of having one kid nuanced. I have sadly seen anti-natalists who say it's selfish to have kids because they consume, but it's an oversimplification that completely overlooks any sort of real-life application. As for not having children because of the current political climate? That's a fucking moronic reason. Fight back, make sure the world becomes a better place. This lack of action is as much immoral as anything argued for in this thread.
Langdon Alger
Banned
People are acting like the OP is insane, but it's not like he invented Antinatalism. It's a legit philosophical theory. And the basic idea has been around forever. From the Bible:
"So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
From Sophocles: "Not to be born is, beyond all estimation, best"
From Buddha: "Oblivious of the suffering to which life is subject, man begets children, and is thus the cause of old age and death. If he would only realize what suffering he would add to by his act, he would desist from the procreation of children; and so stop the operation of old age and death."
"So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
From Sophocles: "Not to be born is, beyond all estimation, best"
From Buddha: "Oblivious of the suffering to which life is subject, man begets children, and is thus the cause of old age and death. If he would only realize what suffering he would add to by his act, he would desist from the procreation of children; and so stop the operation of old age and death."
Airola
Member
OP, what you do think about other forms of life?
Is it immoral for an ant to bring forth new ant life. I mean, ant's life probably has way more struggle and pain and death in and around itself than man has.
For many animals, a lot of their lives is about being in a constant state of alert and emergency so that they don't get eaten alive. And to survive, they need to do the exact same thing they are constantly afraid of that some other animal would do to them. Would everything be better and more moral if those animals also would choose to not procreate?
I mean, a struggle is a struggle. If our pain and suffering is something to totally and completely avoid in a scale that you can even say it's a moral thing to do, wouldn't it apply to other forms of life too?
It really sounds like the thought behind this philosophy literally is against life in general. That if applied to all, it would absolutely end all life everywhere.
Is it immoral for an ant to bring forth new ant life. I mean, ant's life probably has way more struggle and pain and death in and around itself than man has.
For many animals, a lot of their lives is about being in a constant state of alert and emergency so that they don't get eaten alive. And to survive, they need to do the exact same thing they are constantly afraid of that some other animal would do to them. Would everything be better and more moral if those animals also would choose to not procreate?
I mean, a struggle is a struggle. If our pain and suffering is something to totally and completely avoid in a scale that you can even say it's a moral thing to do, wouldn't it apply to other forms of life too?
It really sounds like the thought behind this philosophy literally is against life in general. That if applied to all, it would absolutely end all life everywhere.
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
Life is not immoral because it's also a struggle. The struggle starts when we let our ego/mind overtake us.
Don't overthink life. It's a miracle that it even exists in this (for now) empty universe.
Try to live in the now and enjoy the ride. Every new life is a miracle by itself. This counts for animals and plants as well. That we are even aware of this is amazing. When eventually everything dies you would have been part of the greatest thing in the universe: the collective consciousness.
Don't overthink life. It's a miracle that it even exists in this (for now) empty universe.
Try to live in the now and enjoy the ride. Every new life is a miracle by itself. This counts for animals and plants as well. That we are even aware of this is amazing. When eventually everything dies you would have been part of the greatest thing in the universe: the collective consciousness.
Audioboxer
Member
And? I said loneliness is a natural feeling for humans. We are a social species.
Everyone of us feels some sort of loneliness at times, even if we have to wait till we are facing death to truly feel it.
My point was wanting children just to dissipate that feeling is somewhat selfish. If understandable. You shouldn't however go shaming or fearing people who don't want kids with some idiotic gotcha that resorts to "just you wait till you are dying and see how you feel then with choosing to have no kids!". That is what I hit out at with that mess of a post I quoted.
not to derail this thread all that much, but there's always a chance your friends will die before you
- or prefer to spend their time with their respective families.the chance that all your children or grandchildren die before you is rather low, in comparison.
The older people get, the less they'll be able to rely on their friends as their social 'safety nets', the more they rely on their family, because lives tend to diverge at some point. :/
Bounceounce
Member
1)". You say it is about considering the implications of having a child, and when I say that the right thing, the moral thing, to do in that case is to fight to give your child a good life, you say that it's about having been born in the first place."
Yes, my argument is that a parent "should" consider that they're bringing a being into the world that could not have consented to their existence.
When I said this:"you say that it's about having been born in the first place."
I was going against your point on whether the child would enjoy or hate life, as my argument was solely or at least mainly (for this thread) about the state of existence being something they couldn't consent to being the "wrong", aka being born in the first place,as in the possible moral implication was not the child growing up and wishing they were dead, but everything from birth and on.
Either way I gotta sleep it's two in the morning, thank you for writing all of this it was helpful.
I wish people wouldn't come in and say he sounds like he just took intro to philosophy 101 like that's a bad thing. According to some people, you shouldn't really give a shit or pursue unusual thoughts, because they have been already been dismissed by most people and its embarrassing to do so. It's hypocritical - he's being mocked for trying to sound smart by people who are trying to sound smart by mocking him for not knowing enough about philosophy, dumb pride.
Yea see this makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. An idea of a human being is more worthy of consideration for consent than an actual living cluster of cells that exists. An idea of a living thing is somehow more sacrosanct than an actual living thing? Do you even hear yourself? The mental contortions you are going through to justify your stances are absolutely asinine.
BudokaiMR2
Member
I will never understand this point of view. I understand and respect anyone who just doesn't want kids for personal reasons even if I don't personally understand them however this is quite different.
It just comes off as the ultimate in defeatism.
Obviously the world is fucked up, more places more so than others. However, the absolute only chance we have is to hope the next generation can do better. It may sound corny, but it really is the truth.
The problem is that we are probably on a precipice that there is no coming back from at this point. I hope that is not the case for the sake of my own children's' future but I am not as confident as I was 5 years ago. Or even a week ago. Or fuck it even 5 hours ago.
It just comes off as the ultimate in defeatism.
Obviously the world is fucked up, more places more so than others. However, the absolute only chance we have is to hope the next generation can do better. It may sound corny, but it really is the truth.
The problem is that we are probably on a precipice that there is no coming back from at this point. I hope that is not the case for the sake of my own children's' future but I am not as confident as I was 5 years ago. Or even a week ago. Or fuck it even 5 hours ago.
Langdon Alger
Banned
lmao. This is amazing.
No that's not the point. The point for many of us in here is how he talks about Antinatalists. The way he writes or describes things irks me like he doesn't even appreciate life itself.
Burgess_101
Member
When I think about having kids, I think about if I really enjoy life. I've got depression, anxiety and OCD. Do I want my child to have go through anything like this? To work for its whole life?
For myself, ME having a child would be the wrong choice.
For myself, ME having a child would be the wrong choice.
Charles Brandon
Member
You can have all the unusual thoughts you like but by taking the public position of breeding being immoral you are, by definition, judging the actions of all parents and declaring them morally insufficient. If you're going to do that, you should expect some push-back.
Interesting pov. I don't disagree. There's a lot to be discussed here. That said, I'm on a tablet at 5am and my opinion, atm, remains the same. We will likely have one child. Because of who we are and how we're both single children, mainly. It'd be quite the topic if she wanted more kids. As it stands I've stated I'd like to have two pofentially and she's been adamant about one. At this point I'll go with the flow.
Still, food for thought. There are many sides to this "coin". Though I remain unconvinced having many children and educating them properly will solve any problems. Nor will not having any children. A dilemma!
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
I guess it might be something to ponder over a beer or something if one's in the mood for that sort of thing, but it does strike me as an unusual thing to invest much time or thought in.
Well, that is the impression it gives me. It just seems like an idea without any purpose save as a statement of some kind of superiority of the choice that you've decided on. It's a choice, but I don't see it being a 'moral' argument (as Septimius has laid out).
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
I'm sorry, once again I haven't expressed myself clearly. It's a bad habit of mine.
What I meant (and what the post I quoted was hinting at, I assume) is that life naturally "wants" to be. So talking about consent is pointless, I think.
I'm not defending his arguments or tone, I'm pointing out (i edited my post to make it clearer) the patronising hypocrisy of several posts I've seen in this thread and I only bring it up because it is such a typical thing for people to do.
"did you just take philosophy 101 bro? lol, immediately read the entire library or shut up" - when you know those same people absolutely do not have the kind of insight they are asking of him, otherwise they wouldn't reply in such a way. they're just trying to browbeat him because it's an easy target.
Charles Brandon
Member
let alone live your life by! Smacks to me of self-justification.
Airola
Member
The world will not be any shittier than it has already been at some point of its existence. People have struggled their way through unspeakable amounts of shit. People have gone through the ice age with none of the conveniences and equipment we have today.
You saying it's wrong to bring new generation to this hypothetical shitty future basically means it was also wrong for the early humans to procreate. Not only they had their children brought in one hell of a world but their offspring would also end up creating the world we are in today which will end up "being shitty" soon.
I feel like arguing for the wrongness of bringing new life in today's world shits on the struggles and work the early humans had and did. I feel like there is nothing of value in that type of worldview. It completely dismisses every moment of love and goodness anyone ever felt in the history of mankind.
Ploid 3.0
Member
Psh, if your significant other is gone, go outside, walk around the city and talk to people, make new friends (old people do this all the time in familiar locations where people casually talk like a barbershop). You don't need kids to rid yourself of boredom. There's so much to occupy our minds these days. I always understood the importance of kids in the old days. Now we don't depend on farms and chores and can do very well on our own. Heck by the time the average gaffer gets old we'd be hooked up to some kind of vr stuff, playing air hockey in said vr in something people called arcade rooms.
Some old people also dislike their kids or family. Some kids dislike their old parents, a small amount I'm sure, but it can go either way. Some kids give their parents the worst time and they're stuck with them. It's easy to regret something you never done, or had. Grass is always greener on the other side.
Normal guy: I wish I was a millionaire
Billionaire: I'm losing my mind!!!1
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
When his argument is that having children is immoral, I don't think "yeah but it'll make you happier when you're 90 years-old!" is going to mean much. It just makes it sound even more selfish.
"How can I benefit from this?" should not be going through your mind when contemplating bringing a new life into the world.
I understand the reasoning of anti-natalism on a simple level. But it really doesn't seem practical as a philosophy on more than a hypothetical level. Arguments against abortion consist of the idea of baseline harm where you can't bring harm to someone by bringing them into existance regardless of damage to them because life itself is an overall positive, wheras abnormal harm argues that you can by the parent's act or passiveness.
But I mean... as a personal moral code maybe? If you think you would never be prepared to have a child, but as an overall moral theory it is thinly held together and makes no sense.
Bringing someone into existance (if you know they'll start healthy) isn't a negative. Life has joy and suffering but people have the autonomy to wade through that and discover their own purpose in life. If you say you don't have a child's consent for birth its a double edged sword, because you are also denying their potential autonomy in general.
But I mean... as a personal moral code maybe? If you think you would never be prepared to have a child, but as an overall moral theory it is thinly held together and makes no sense.
Bringing someone into existance (if you know they'll start healthy) isn't a negative. Life has joy and suffering but people have the autonomy to wade through that and discover their own purpose in life. If you say you don't have a child's consent for birth its a double edged sword, because you are also denying their potential autonomy in general.
The desire to procreate is not a choice. It's an inherent - and vital - part of any living thing.
Also, existing is not something you can consent to - even if your are conscious of your existance. You do not get the choice of whether you want to exist or not, nothing does.
I don't think making any of the above a moral problem is useful.
Also, existing is not something you can consent to - even if your are conscious of your existance. You do not get the choice of whether you want to exist or not, nothing does.
I don't think making any of the above a moral problem is useful.
Bounceounce
Member
Why should anyone have to appreciate life?
Also I clearly stated that I do multiple times and my tone across this thread has been largely straight forward and without a doubt mostly less smug than most of the other posts.
Stop it.
This post didn't get nearly the praise it deserved.
Pixel Fist
Member
This is exactly my line of thinking.
The world has always been an uncertain place to grow up in, war has always made sure of that. However modern medicine and social welfare means that children have the best start in life now more so than any point in history.
Bringing our children up to be the best they can be so they can challenge all the current ideals that are ruining this world is surely the moral thing to do.
Also it might sound corny as fuck but until you have a child you do not understand how much it is possible to love something. That alone makes life worth living for.
No one is jumping on him for being an atinatalist, but for the reason why. The idea of consent from something that doesn't exist deserves ridicule.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to have children, this one is just absurd.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Existence without consent is something worth pondering as a philosophical argument.
The OP and his posts are just insecurity writ large , he just does a piss poor job of the complexity of the issue.
Read more, live more.
The OP and his posts are just insecurity writ large , he just does a piss poor job of the complexity of the issue.
Read more, live more.
ginger ninja
Banned
OP make sure you don't hurt yourself when you're trying to get off that pedestal bro.
/s. Or is it. Can't honestly tell given the OP post.
Why should people appreciate life? Things are terrible for a lot of people.
Lmao, this is your grand argument for having kids?
There are actual ways to connect and bond with people without them being your physical offspring, you know. If you're alone on your deathbed, that's a situation of your own making, regardless on whether you have kids or not.
Can Crusher
Banned
Answering nonsense with nonsense.
Where does this miracle idea come from anyway? I'm no anti-natalist, but that strikes me as disingenuous, and something you want to believe, just because.
Same with the line about struggle, when i think about the average life of most people in the world, especially throughout history, that looks pretty fucking miserable, whether you're overthinking it or not.
At a base level, nature seems pretty violent and vile to me, it's scary to even think about, honestly.
But i guess it makes me feel a bit better about how good i'm having it, even when i'm broke, depressed, etc etc.
Even if you're anti-natalist, you should consider that a lot of people find more joy than dread in life or people would be jumping off rooftops in droves.
And even if you don't, the silver lining is: When you'll be dead you won't remember all your sufferings, might as well give it a shot.
Rudimental
Member
Only for about 10 seconds.
1) Consent can only be required from things with the capacity for consent.
2) Things that do not exist do not have the capacity for consent.
3) Therefore, consent cannot be required from things that do not exist.
4) Potential humans do not exist.
5) Therefore, consent cannot be required from potential humans.
Bounceounce
Member
Because your constant smug posts and one liners are the holy grail of conversation.
99% of my posts in this thread are straight forward responses to arguments and questions asked of me, and you're representing this as "insecurity writ large" (are you trying to channel Tyrion).
Go crawl in a hole unless you have anything of value to add to the thread like the people actually writing out posts to explain why they believe I'm wrong.
The Hermit
Member
Are you virgin? That would explain a lot
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Lab animals and the ethical guidelines around them are in ways we humans think of the non-conscientious to be apart of.
ginger ninja
Banned
If antinatalist didn't consent to be born than how come they got consent to put forth the antinatalist argument ? Checkmate antinatalist.
Bounceounce
Member
Which is why the discussion is not about obtaining consent from the unborn.
Sorry OP my view is this is merely an interesting example of the convolutions a brain can conjour and apply as a world view.
We procreate ir we go extinct. Universe doesn't care either way. Having a choice to be born is impossible. You have to exist to make a choice hence its impossible to realise.
But hey I know the world is over populated so it's helping out anyway even if ultimately it's inapplicable long term (unless we voluntarily chose extinction as a species).
We procreate ir we go extinct. Universe doesn't care either way. Having a choice to be born is impossible. You have to exist to make a choice hence its impossible to realise.
But hey I know the world is over populated so it's helping out anyway even if ultimately it's inapplicable long term (unless we voluntarily chose extinction as a species).
- Status