Upload to Google Docs

Tanner Provencher

Dr. Oliver

Philosophy

December 7, 2019

Anti-Natalism

“The best would have been not to be born. Not being born is, in a negative ethics, the absolute good; but it is, precisely, the good that cannot be sought.” -Julio Cabrera

Anti-Natalism, at its core, is the philosophical belief that procreation is morally wrong.  This position can be categorized into two broader positions known as Local Anti-Natalism and Global Anti-Natalism. These positions are known to be a very pessimistic view in ethical philosophy, but it is my belief that an argument can be made to make this idea a very positive one that will help the global community as a whole. 

Local Anti-Natalism is the more accepted position of the two. This belief implies that there are certain situations that bringing new life in the world is morally wrong. For example, when the parents lack the stability, traits, or environment to raise a child. Tis situation will could result in more harm being done to the world than good and acting upon something that will, more than likely, cause more harm than good is immoral.  The argument against this stance is that you never know the life that someone will lead. It is more likely that someone who is born into poverty and makes it out will be the one to help others out of poverty, and if that person was never born is it not the “would be parent” keeping those people in poverty? It is also an argument that someone who is born well off is more likely to be selfish and cause more harm to the world than good. 

Global Anti-Natalism is the stance that creating new life is wrong no matter what the situation. David Benatar, a philosopher at Capetown University, is the trail blazer of modern Global Anti-Natalism. In his book, Better Never to Have Been, when he is asked if life is worth living he answers with an emphatic “no!”  He goes on to explain that life is, by all means, worth continuing, but it is not so easy deciding that if you were worth being born. He argues that life brings both hurt and happiness, but non existence brings neither. The hurt of life is much more long-lasting than the happiness, therefore, experiencing neither in a state of not existing is better and creating human life is unethical. Another claim Global Anti-Natalists make is that humans cause harm to each other and the earth, which means creating new humans is unethical. 

The one thing that all Local Anti-natalists, Global Anti-Natalists, and Natalists agree on in regards to procreation, is that it is better to adopt. Some Anti-Natalists even say that it is our duty to adopt because we will undoubtedly do good in this way. This is the argument that as long as there are people who already exist that would benefit from your raising them it is completely immoral to create life. An adopted child will undoubtedly do better after being adopted, while it is a chance of fate whether or not a child you created will do better existing than not to have existed at all. 

“Killing someone and giving birth to someone are two violent actions through which, magically, man tries to put himself in God’s place. The victim of a homicide is always helpless, but never as helpless as the victim of a birth. Childbirth spills innocent blood equal to homicide. If procreation is a free choice, then life is fundamentally unnecessary pain.” -Julio Cabrera