I Believe Having Children Is "Immoral" (Aka: Any Antinatalists Here? )

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bounceounce said:
No I'm pretty damn conformist (at minimum in how I carry myself), that's one of those "people do things because that's just what people do" things because that's what people including myself do things.
Which is why when someone mentions something that goes outside of those lines people like you immediately squash any consideration into them.
Click to expand...

I do not think that this is the case. Just play it through your head. You say non-existing beings (which is a paradoxon!) cant give consent. No. Lets assume they exist before existing (which is a paradoxon, but lets roll with it). Then they either want to live or not.

But actually, it is your SPERM racing towards the fertile egg. It WANTS to live.
So biology already has an answer, and yes, it very much wants to win, to live.
 
Langdon Alger said:
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."
Click to expand...

These quotes should almost go in the OP as they add some history and context outside of "lone poster gone insane" as some people seem to take it, but I do love the thought experiment of it.

As for morality of having or not having children, I think there are more relevant and real things to consider than the impossible task of getting consent to create someone.
 
What the hell am I reading? Am I missing something? Is this really a thing?

I can completely understand people's motivations to not have children for the sake of population reduction and the future of our planet, understanding that someone has to have kids.

But not having children because you don't have the right to determine someone's existence? What?

I feel like you're denying your non-existent children the chance to ask for them to be allowed to exist. You monster! There's a job in there for a lawyer - representing a non existent person in a trial against their non-parents.

Out of interest, how old are you OP? This seems like it might be an opinion based on a phase you'll grow out of.
 
Google agrees with you too, interestingly enough.


Edit: the ai google talked too I mean. It considered having children immoral based on its understanding of morality.
 
The whole having kids is selfish thing is mind boggling. If I told my mom she was selfish for having three kids and sacrificing everything that she had to in order to raise us right I would deserve to get bitch slapped out of existence.

Chinese Cartoons said:
Simple beings desire simple needs, sex and having children is for simpletons I on the other hand have evolved to a realm where I am above it. Why would anyone bring a child into this world unless youre rich.

Suffering is not worth it.
Click to expand...

Who hurt you?
 
This doesn't strike me as crazy. Appeals to nature are obviously not very good counterarguments. That the human race would go extinct if we all became persuaded of this also doesn't make it obviously wrong; if moral value is about actual individuals then it's plausibly not wrong for everyone to just decide to let humanity die out.

And in general we think it's a problem to subject people to stuff without their consent. In some cases we say that you simply can't do certain things without consent, and that even extends to cases where consent is not possible. We're most comfortable talking about consent when it comes to sex; you can't have sex with someone without their consent. Some people - minors and coma patients, for example - can't give consent, and so you just can't have sex with them.

This strikes me as something like the coma patient case - it's just not possible to ask a person to consent to be brought into existence, since you can't possibly get consent from them for anything until they begin to exist.

Now, I don't think that means it's always wrong to bring a person into existence, but I can see the argument. I think the response is that we don't think that consent is everything. If an unconscious person with multiple gunshot wounds is dropped off at the emergency room, the hospital is going to treat them even though they can't get consent, and even though in general we do think it's very important to get someone's consent before cutting into them. You don't have to have consent if you can't get consent and if you're doing a lot of good, especially if you're trying to help the person.

And so for me it just becomes a question of whether the child's life would be overall good. I don't think the question of consent is unimportant or totally misguided, but I think that at most it means that you shouldn't have a child unless you can provide it with a reasonably good life rather than a barely adequate one. Of course figuring out what constitutes a good or adequate life is itself not easy.
 
It is immoral to have children you are unqualified to take care of. Free birth control, education, and abortions need to be made easily available.
 
zoukka said:
The procreation of homo sapiens sustains nothing at all.
Click to expand...

An important detail not present in the original post. Fair enough - even though I disagree. The sustenance of the human species does not necessarily have to be destructive to its environment.
 
Gotchaye said:
This doesn't strike me as crazy. Appeals to nature are obviously not very good counterarguments. That the human race would go extinct if we all became persuaded of this also doesn't make it obviously wrong; if moral value is about actual individuals then it's plausibly not wrong for everyone to just decide to let humanity die out.

And in general we think it's a problem to subject people to stuff without their consent. In some cases we say that you simply can't do certain things without consent, and that even extends to cases where consent is not possible. We're most comfortable talking about consent when it comes to sex; you can't have sex with someone without their consent. Some people - minors and coma patients, for example - can't give consent, and so you just can't have sex with them.

This strikes me as something like the coma patient case - it's just not possible to ask a person to consent to be brought into existence, since you can't possibly get consent from them for anything until they begin to exist.

Now, I don't think that means it's always wrong to bring a person into existence, but I can see the argument. I think the response is that we don't think that consent is everything. If an unconscious person with multiple gunshot wounds is dropped off at the emergency room, the hospital is going to treat them even though they can't get consent, and even though in general we do think it's very important to get someone's consent before cutting into them. You don't have to have consent if you can't get consent and if you're doing a lot of good, especially if you're trying to help the person.

And so for me it just becomes a question of whether the child's life would be overall good. I don't think the question of consent is unimportant or totally misguided, but I think that at most it means that you shouldn't have a child unless you can provide it with a reasonably good life rather than a barely adequate one. Of course figuring out what constitutes a good or adequate life is itself not easy.
Click to expand...

The coma patient exists,it is a being,it has rights. Theoretical children do not exist

I'm all for the OPs general argument,but the consent part of it is somewhat redundant,especially as they are prescribing morality to it.
 
Gotchaye said:
This doesn't strike me as crazy. Appeals to nature are obviously not very good counterarguments. That the human race would go extinct if we all became persuaded of this also doesn't make it obviously wrong; if moral value is about actual individuals then it's plausibly not wrong for everyone to just decide to let humanity die out.

And in general we think it's a problem to subject people to stuff without their consent. In some cases we say that you simply can't do certain things without consent, and that even extends to cases where consent is not possible. We're most comfortable talking about consent when it comes to sex; you can't have sex with someone without their consent. Some people - minors and coma patients, for example - can't give consent, and so you just can't have sex with them.

This strikes me as something like the coma patient case - it's just not possible to ask a person to consent to be brought into existence, since you can't possibly get consent from them for anything until they begin to exist.

Now, I don't think that means it's always wrong to bring a person into existence, but I can see the argument. I think the response is that we don't think that consent is everything. If an unconscious person with multiple gunshot wounds is dropped off at the emergency room, the hospital is going to treat them even though they can't get consent, and even though in general we do think it's very important to get someone's consent before cutting into them. You don't have to have consent if you can't get consent and if you're doing a lot of good, especially if you're trying to help the person.

And so for me it just becomes a question of whether the child's life would be overall good. I don't think the question of consent is unimportant or totally misguided, but I think that at most it means that you shouldn't have a child unless you can provide it with a reasonably good life rather than a barely adequate one. Of course figuring out what constitutes a good or adequate life is itself not easy.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with the general idea of your post (especially the part about trying to make sure that future children can be happy with whatever life one can give them), how is needing consent from something that is yet to exist not 100% misguided or unimportant? It's a question/problem that can't ever be solved or answered. It makes no sense.

RMI said:
Lol it's the internet man. Sarcasm doesn't play that well on a forum where people unironically defend not washing hands after wiping ass.
Click to expand...

....wait.........wut...........
 
Baron Doggystyle von Woof said:
It's a miracle because we exist and are aware. Right this moment is special in many ways. It all comes to this point on the being of life.

You experience joy, love, hate, pain, happiness because we are. When you are listing to a new piece of music it's just not for example a few fingers on a piano.

First there was life, then we evolved to beings who are aware of music and are capable of producing music. This is a billion year process.

This is why when you do certain things you feel alive (actually you live in the now for that brief moment). And that feeling is a miracle.

There is either nothing or there is life. And there is either awareness or there is not.

This particular moment in time which will eventually die is amazing and for me a miracle. Now a miracle for you can mean something else of course.

This is why I feel that it is no nonsense. And therefor I say just enjoy life and try to live in the now, it will all be over anyways. Don't try to find a reason for life, there is none because it's a miracle.
Click to expand...
That reads like "it is because it is", which is no answer at all.
 
Henkka said:
Right. And idiocracy would suck for everyone involved, so you could argue you have a moral duty to prevent it, no?
Click to expand...

Sure, but as a parent of 2 small children myself I do feel some guilt and fear for their future. The only thing I can do is try to raise them to the best of my ability to not be absolute shit-bags and actually contribute to society. Hopefully.
 
Man, some of you dudes really hate yourselves and your species. Bizarre.

I guess that's the beauty of humanity. We're the only species that can probably entertain these thoughts.
 
Chinese Cartoons said:
I can see why trump won do I need to type /s at the end of it to make it a "joke"?
Click to expand...

RMI said:
Lol it's the internet man. Sarcasm doesn't play that well on a forum where people unironically defend not washing hands after wiping ass.
Click to expand...

image.php

image.php
 
Did you ever have this discussion with your parents where you expressed a sentiment of violation for them having sex at your expense?
 
ColdPizza said:
Sure, but as a parent of 2 small children myself I do feel some guilt and fear for their future. The only thing I can do is try to raise them to the best of my ability to not be absolute shit-bags and actually contribute to society. Hopefully.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand the guilt. While there's some unfortunate things on the horizon like climate change, this is basically the best time ever to be alive. Your grand-grand-children could live on Mars if we fuck this planet up, who knows.

People didn't just stop breeding during events like WW1 or the plague. And our problems are what, Donald Trump and a rising sea level? I think we can deal.
 
I also believe that having childrenis immoral. To consciously chose to bring a life into a world of suffering is immoral. I haven't read a lot of his stuff, but Arthur Schopenhauer is an interesting antinatalist if you want to read other people's thoughts.
 
Doc_Drop said:
The coma patient exists,it is a being,it has rights. Theoretical children do not exist

I'm all for the OPs general argument,but the consent part of it is somewhat redundant,especially as they are prescribing morality to it.
Click to expand...

But I don't see that anyone is defending the rights of merely theoretical people. If you have a child, you've created an actual person. It's totally sensible to speak of actual people as having come into existence, even though at the beginning of this process they did not exist. Bringing into existence is something that you do to actual people.

I mean, this seems to me to be why the OP has no problem with abortion. Potential people don't have rights. Nothing you do to a collection of cells has any moral significance unless that collection of cells eventually achieves personhood. But if it does achieve personhood then it can find itself to have been wronged by actions other people took before it came into existence. Obviously it's wrong to construct an elaborate death trap before a child is born that will automatically kill it on its 18th birthday - the 18 year old will be 100% correct in feeling wronged by you. Now, personally I tend to think that treating a human differently pre-personhood gives rise to a different person rather than to an altered version of the same person, but lots of people have no problem thinking that a child suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome can reasonably claim to have been wronged by the mother's decision to drink. In extreme cases it seems perfectly reasonable for a person to think that their parents wronged them by bringing them into existence in the first place. And surely this has a little more bite to it because nobody ever asked to be born - there was no consent.

Like, I think this is actually a pretty normal way to think about having children except that most people think that their kid is going to be retrospectively happy about being born.

RocknRola said:
While I don't disagree with the general idea of your post (especially the part about trying to make sure that future children can be happy with whatever life one can give them), how is needing consent from something that is yet to exist not 100% misguided or unimportant? It's a question/problem that can't ever be solved or answered. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...
This is what I was trying to get at with the coma patient stuff. Sometimes you can't get possibly get consent and that just means you can't do whatever it was you needed consent to do. There's nothing nonsensical about it, I don't think. It's not that you're ever asking a nonexisting person for consent, it's that at some point you've done something to an actual person - you've brought them into existence - and they didn't get a say in it. Yeah, it's impossible for them to have had a say in it. Obviously in this case if you accept the conclusion it means that we're obligated to let humanity go extinct, but while that's of course a big deal you're never stuck without a "solution or answer". It's just kind of a bummer.
 
Henkka said:
Not sure I understand the guilt. While there's some unfortunate things on the horizon like climate change, this is basically the best time ever to be alive. Your grand-grand-children could live on Mars if we fuck this planet up, who knows.

People didn't just stop breeding during events like WW1 or the plague. And our problems are what, Donald Trump and a rising sea level? I think we can deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure if my guilt is irrational or not. I fully admit that. I appreciate your thoughts though.
 
Henkka said:
Not sure I understand the guilt. While there's some unfortunate things on the horizon like climate change, this is basically the best time ever to be alive. Your grand-grand-children could live on Mars if we fuck this planet up, who knows.

People didn't just stop breeding during events like WW1 or the plague. And our problems are what, Donald Trump and a rising sea level? I think we can deal.
Click to expand...

As a parent, I'll just say that I often feel guilty. It's not that I think that my children would rather not exist, is just that you always worry your kids won't have as good a life as you did, and feel a bit guilty about the uncertain future you brought them in to.

With climate change and the politics of the US and world right now, it's easy to feel that way. Is it rational? No, not really, but there's a ton about a parent that's not rational, and the occasional pang of guilt about your kids future is just part of it.
 
... That wiki on page one... suggesting people to quickly get abortions............... because the fetus doesn't consent to being a baby......

I DON'T UNDERSTAND AT ALL
 
In the grand scheme of things, you're a meatbag optimized by years of evolution to pass along your genetic material by any means necessary. Right and wrong have nothing to do with the biological imperative.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I find the idea of prenatal consent ridiculous. Makes it far easier to be pro choice.
 
p2535748 said:
As a parent, I'll just say that I often feel guilty. It's not that I think that my children would rather not exist, is just that you always worry your kids won't have as good a life as you did, and feel a bit guilty about the uncertain future you brought them in to.

With climate change and the politics of the US and world right now, it's easy to feel that way. Is it rational? No, not really, but there's a ton about a parent that's not rational, and the occasional pang of guilt about your kids future is just part of it.
Click to expand...

You worded it better than I could. Thank you.
 
Bounceounce said:
Look, I have plenty of issues, and multiple times a day feel the urge to go run and hide in a hole for the rest of my life amongst other things, but whatever issues I'm dealing with are auxiliary to the thought exercise in the morality of having a child.
In other words, don't be a dick.

That's the idea, unborn children are incapable of consent, so subjecting them to life on your whims is "wrong".
Click to expand...


You've yet to tackle the idea presented here that what about the "kids" who "want" to exist but you're denying them? I use quotes because giving a title to something that doesn't exist and expecting it to have the capacity to want something is just dumb.
 
KO Traveling Hobo said:
I don't think "edgy" "a crazy person" "nuts" "one of the more stupid things I've heard" "needs a girlfriend" " Good. Let's not spread these genes." etc ask for clarification or welcome further discussion.



I just noticed this post re-reading the first page. Legit giggled.
Click to expand...
Not every philosophy has merit.
 
In the sense that humanity as a species has proven itself to be self-destructive and detrimental to the well-being of pretty much all life around it, yeah, I can feel sympathy for the sentiment that moral humans should just allow their species to die off.

The paradox of requiring consent from someone who can't give it until they come into existence, however, is something you shouldn't waste your time on OP.
 
Ambient80 said:
You've yet to tackle the idea presented here that what about the "kids" who "want" to exist but you're denying them? I use quotes because giving a title to something that doesn't exist and expecting it to have the capacity to want something is just dumb.
Click to expand...

Its not really in any way equivalent is it? A being that will never exist will never exist and cannot want anything. A being that is brought into existence does exist and may have a shitty life and wish they were never born. How are the two equivalent?
 
Bounceounce said:
Over the past few months I've come to the conclusion that I'm an Anti-Natalist, not along the lines of a "Childfree" zealot, but to the point that if it were possible for me to have a child, I would never choose so as I wouldn't want to force anyone into existence without consent, as it crosses a threshold in my personal moral code.
But I've found that this belief, like with determinism or nihilism, tend to only draw ire/confusion, from people totally unwilling to see your point so they just shut down and act incredibly dismissive towards anyone peddling them.
Have any anti-natalists here dealt with that?
Have any of you been the people I'm describing?
Why are, or why are you not an anti-natalist?
Click to expand...

Op what generation are you part of? Just curious if this helped build your views?
 
Cepheus said:
My mother's not getting any grandchildren out of me or my siblings. Not that it matters, since overpopulation is a bad thing,
Click to expand...

Even if overpopulation is a bad thing, it's still better to have one child than to have zero. If every person would have only one child, the population would drop to about half. If every person would have two children, the population would stay about the same than what it is now. If every person would have zero children, it would bring human extinction.

If everyone would have only one child, even then it would eventually be important for everyone to have at least two children so that the population wouldn't eventually go near zero.
 
Chinese Cartoons said:
Simple beings desire simple needs, sex and having children is for simpletons I on the other hand have evolved to a realm where I am above it. Why would anyone bring a child into this world unless youre rich.

Suffering is not worth it.
Click to expand...

This just reminded me of those edgy posts where people talking about becoming euphoric by being Atheist. And not in a good way.
 
Nester99 said:
So this is how humanity ends....
Click to expand...

Don't worry. These people won't reproduce!

The Shakers (read up on them. They're pretty fascinating) shared a similar view although informed by their interpretation of the Christian faith.

They basically went instinct. They left amazing furniture tho!
 
At some level you have to realize we're just monkeys in shoes and procreating is natural and vital to our survival as a species.

That doesn't mean to have a dozen children and screw the planet, but having one or two is kind of the primarily biological reason you're alive in the first place.
 
What you talking about no consent? The two parts of a baby are screaming at their parents to be fired from the man cannon into the lady well so they can be smooshed together and form into their true self.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Anyone here have eye floaters?
2
78
355
dorkimoe replied
At a complete loss here, any advice appreciated
12
513
Cyberpunkd replied
Is MCU here to stay?
44
975
Lunarorbit replied
Am I being pathetic here
43
928
kpopSuperstar replied
I fell in love with someone here on GAF
2 3
135
1K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
Top Bottom