Refuting Antinatalism

By Wolf McNally

Antinatalism is the belief that it is morally wrong to have children. This is a position that has been gaining traction in recent years, particularly in the West. It is important to understand the arguments made by antinatalists and to be able to refute them. Here are some of the key points made by antinatalists and how they can be refuted.

Part 1: Distractions

There are several “distractions” or “deflections” I hear antinatalists make. These can be dismissed when arguing about antinatialism because refuting them does not refute the core argument.

Death

Death is a deflection because antinatalists do not argue that death itself is either immoral or that all things that die suffer. Lots of things die (e.g. plankton) that don’t suffer.

The Environment

The fundamental argument for antinatalism does not rely on scale: there is no population small enough where it would not apply.

Quality of Life

Some people lead dreadful lives while others lead relatively good lives, but if suffering is endemic to all lives then the variance of quality of life is a distraction from their core argument.

Economics and Socio-politics of Raising Children

These are circumstantial, and even if the economics of raising children were universally favorable, it wouldn’t change the core antinatalist argument.

How Having Children Affects Personal Freedom and Autonomy

A valid concern for when and whether to have children, but the core argument wouldn’t change even if having children incurred absolutely zero burden on parents.

Part 2: Suffering in Various Philosophical Systems

This is a broad survey of how various philosophical systems view suffering. It is important to understand these perspectives in order to contextualize antinatalism. It’s also important to note that there are views such as efilism that are even more extremely anti-life than antinatalism.

  • Antinatalism: Asserts that bringing others into existence is a “harm”. Perceives the inevitability of suffering as a fundamental argument against the act of procreation, asserting that nonexistence prevents suffering and is therefore ethically preferable to bringing new life into a world where suffering is guaranteed.
  • Buddhism: Sees suffering as inherent to existence, caused by desire and attachment, and advocates for overcoming it through the Eightfold Path leading to enlightenment.
  • Christianity: Views suffering as a consequence of human sin, but also as an opportunity for spiritual growth and closeness to God, often seen in the context of Christ’s own suffering.
  • Efilism: (“life” spelled backwards-ism) Efilism, distinct from antinatalism, goes beyond the cessation of procreation to argue for the ethical imperative of reducing or ending the suffering of existing sentient life through the elimination of life itself. While antinatalism focuses on not starting new lives due to inherent suffering, efilism suggests a moral obligation to end the suffering in all existing sentient life, potentially advocating for ethical ways to phase out all sentient life on Earth.
  • Hinduism: Attributes suffering to karma and the cycle of rebirth, advocating for righteous living and spiritual practices to break the cycle and achieve moksha (liberation).
  • Humanism: Focuses on human values and the capacity for self-determination, viewing suffering as a challenge to be addressed through reason, empathy, and the collective effort of humanity to improve the human condition and alleviate suffering where possible.
  • Islam: Considers suffering as a test of faith and character, a means to expiate sins, and an opportunity to grow spiritually and draw closer to Allah.
  • Judaism: Understands suffering as part of the human experience, often as a test or punishment from God, but also as an opportunity for growth and strengthening one’s relationship with God.
  • Nietzscheanism: Embraces suffering as an essential aspect of life and personal growth, viewing it as a means to build strength and achieve greatness.
  • Sikhism: Views suffering as a part of God’s will, a test of one’s faith, and an opportunity for spiritual growth, emphasizing the importance of accepting God’s will with grace.
  • Stoicism: Advises acceptance of suffering as a natural part of life, encouraging individuals to focus on what they can control and to maintain inner peace regardless of external circumstances.
  • Taoism: Approaches suffering as a natural part of the Tao, the way of the universe, encouraging a harmonious life in accordance with nature and acceptance of life’s ebbs and flows.
  • Transhumanism: Envisions the use of advanced technology to enhance human capabilities and overcome limitations, including suffering, aiming to transform the human condition by transcending biological constraints and improving physical and mental well-being.

Part 3. Antinatalist Arguments and Refutations

Argument from Suffering

Argument: Syllogism:

  • Premise 1: Causing suffering is unethical.
  • Premise 2: Having children causes suffering.
  • Conclusion: Having children is unethical.

Refutation: Oversimplification: refuses to allow any value to countervail against suffering as an “ultimate anti-value”.

Argument from Ethical Responsibility

Argument: The choice to have children requires ethical justification.

Refutation: Begging the question: This itself is an assertion that needs justification, because it places humanity entirely outside of natural processes and places a moral burden on people living now. The desire to breathe or eat requires no ethical justification, and neither does the desire to procreate.

Argument from Specific Tragedy

Argument: A couple who know they are genetically predisposed to have a malformed child would be making an ethical decision to not procreate. Knowing that the children you bring into the world would suffer is analogous.

Refutation: Lifeboat scenario, hasty generalization: The legal adage “bad cases make bad law” is applicable here. Just as most people will never face the terrible choice of deciding which ten people to save from a sinking boat of a hundred passengers, most people will never face the choice of whether to procreate knowing their child will suffer terribly and die young. So the specific case of a couple with a known genetic predisposition to have a malformed child is not analogous to the general case of all procreation. It is a bad analogy— reasoning “from the edges of the bell curve”— and therefore a hasty generalization.

Argument: By procreating you are bringing beings into existence who will suffer without their consent.

Refutation: Category Error: This is an incoherent utterance, as non-existence has no attributes such as the ability to consent.

Argument from Self-Evident Badness

Argument: Suffering is an inevitable aspect of living.

Refutation: Begging the question: Even if it is inevitable, suffering is not self-evidently wrong. Many philosophies and religions incorporate suffering into their views as a positive (see Part 2).

Argument from Reduction of Suffering

Argument: Reduction of suffering is a moral imperative.

Refutation: Category error: Reduction of suffering among living beings is a value, but becomes incoherent when applied to non-existent “potential beings”.

Argument from Duty of Care

Argument: We have a “duty of care” to bring about a future with less suffering.

Refutation: Stolen Concept: “Duty of care” can only be argued from the standpoint of someone positively committed to the existence of future generations. To attempt to argue duty of care while valuing a state where no future generations exist is incoherent.

Argument from Axiological Asymmetry

Argument: The act of procreation isn’t neutral. It isn’t offering a choice between equally balanced alternatives (procreate or not procreate). Rather, the choice is between:

  • Guaranteed Non-existence: A state without the possibility of suffering, but also without the possibility of joy.
  • Existence: A state that guarantees both the potential for joy and the inevitability of suffering.

Refutation: Begging the question: This argument is based on value judgments that are not self-evident, particularly that suffering is the “ultimate anti-value” that outweighs all other values. Since it axiomatically presupposes that suffering is the ultimate anti-value, it is essentially a tenet of faith asking you to accept without proof what it has the burden to prove. Even more fundamentally, it also commits incoherence because it attempts to compare a state of non-existence with a state of existence, which is impossible because non-existence has no attributes (including “zero suffering”) and therefore cannot be compared to anything. In this sense the argument is “not even wrong.”

Argument from Social Justice

Argument: Population increase results in additional environmental and social burden.

Refutation: Specious: From the antinatalist view even one suffering being is too much, so the fundamental argument and its other refutations don’t change (see Part 1).