There are in my estimate five rationally-based, axiomatic, ethical, non-self-interested answers to why one should never procreate:
1.) The Negative Utilitarian Argument---
This argument is based on the negative utilitarian grounds that you are preventing the most amount of pain and/or suffering (which is good) while at the same time you are not depriving the potential newborn person of the good (which is not bad). This is the argument argued by David Benatar in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence (by Oxford University Press) and other philosophers as well.
This argument goes that good things are good, bad things are bad. If we are to prevent the bad for a new generation (by not having this potential generation) than this is good, because there will be no new person to experience suffering. On the same token, by not procreating a new generation you are not depriving that potential being of good because that potential being never existed to "know" there was good to be deprived of...literally there is no-thing there to be deprived. On a negative utilitarian scale it is win/win as there is no deprivation of good (which is not bad) and also no experience of bad/suffering for a new child (which is good). You have prevented a new potential being from suffering without any side effects (that potential but literally non-existent being is not "deprived" of experiencing the good as nonexistent beings don't get deprived).
To put this more succinctly.. the central pillar of Benatar's asymmetry argument is (BNHB, p. 30):
Pleasure benefits us and pain harms us.
(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
So far, pleasure and pain are symmetrical in their goodness and badness. But they are not symmetrical with respect to their absence. More specifically:
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone, but
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody (an actual somebody) who is deprived by its absence.
[Sidenote..even if you live a "charmed" life, the ultimate harm of death befalls everyone..but there is rarely or never such thing as a "charmed" life anyways].
2.) The Eastern, Schopenhauerian, and Ancient Greek Forms of Suffering Argument---
In Eastern philosophy and in some forms of Ancient Greek philosophy there is a notion that suffering simply comes from being deprived. Buddhism goes further and calls this "attachment to desire" in the Second Noble Truth. At least on the "First Noble Truth", that "life is suffering", Buddhism is correct. However, there is no metaphysical/mystical/divine way to get rid of this desire as Buddhism and some Ancient Greek Philosophy schools go on to prescribe; we are always going to be deprived as long as we live. Humans are deprived at almost all moments and this simply causes suffering at almost all moments. We always need food, water, shelter, the basics of life.. Along with this we need entertainments of all sorts (similar to the H.L. Menken quote). We cannot "just be" and be happy at all times. We are in continual need of fulfillment from a deprivation that does not cease. As long as our biological and psychological needs are never fulfilled, we are never truly in a state of pure bliss or happiness, but instead a state of "continual becoming". In Platonic terms we are never a perfect being, but always a shadow being that is moving in time and thus in flux. According to this theory.."enlightenment", "nirvana", "tranquility" or whatever other pinnacles of self-actualization, cannot really be achieved in our time as living beings because de facto, as a rule of life and being thrown into existence, we must always try to fill this constant deprivation... we will always need to overcome our human need to survive, sublimate any feelings of despair, ennui, and entertain ourselves. We may be "temporarily satisfied", but this is never complete. [Sidenote...Callous and unthinking people seem to believe that this deprivation is not a state of humans, but then go on to live exactly the life of deprivation thus described. One can try to deny that which causes suffering while still suffering.]
If bliss is not had (from birth on to death), and suffering exists (deprivation exists)... simply put, this is not a condition that is right to subject another being to.
3.) Argument of Consent and "Rights" Argument---
Simply, this argument states that since it is an impossibility to consult an adult version of the potential child the parent is creating (on whether it would have liked to been born), the parent cannot assume that it is all right to in fact go ahead and throw a new being into the world. Using statistics to claim that the potential person will probably want to be born does not take away the fact that it might not have wanted to be born in the first place. Also, retroactively saying that the new being can commit suicide if it really hates life is cruel. To quote E.M. Cioran "You always kill yourself too late". This is one major reason suicide is not a justification for having a child that possibly would not want to be born. Another reason is that giving a person who did not want to be born an option of suicide is giving it options of choosing between the lesser of harms.. living in a world it did not ask for (harm 1) or doing itself in for good (harm 2). Harm is still enacted by the being who wants to commit suicide even if it was a choice by that particular suicidal person to enact it upon himself. Again, anti-procreation stances are not against maximizing pleasure once one is already born, but it is about minimizing pain for at least the potential new being even if it is too late for us "the already born". By killing oneself one is still experiencing a harm to oneself that could have been avoided by not being born in the first place... Choosing a lesser harm amongst an option of harms is still choosing amongst unwanted and unnecessary harm even if choosing a lesser harm is trying to minimize the damage.
4.) The Gambling Argument---
Though we experience harm throughout our existence, some humans have more harm in their lives than others. By having children, a parent is always running the risk of having children that will experience lives with much more harm than others. It could be a genetic disorder/disease; it could be a completely traumatic life experience/episode;, it could be a health disorder, mental disorder, or any number of terrible terrible instances and ailments that can befall a human... The parent simply does not know the negative consequences that will befall a new life and by having a child, the parent is taking that risk. Even if likelihood is supposedly "high" for a "happy" "well-adjusted" life.. the fact that there is risk at all and that we are gambling with people's lives is reason not to have children.
5.) Treating people as Means and not an Ends Argument---
There is an economic and social machine that all societies create. By knowingly throwing another unit of labor into the market(or society in general), you are making a cog in a wheel. The argument would say that the new child is now treated as a cog that was born to serve a collective.. Now, the child was born not for itself, but for some entity (in this case society).. Is the child here to increase technology for no reason except to increase technology? Is it here for its parent's sake? For him/her/future beings/technological innovation/science (insert any outside entity)...? If so, those are all not reasons for the CHILD, the individual, but for other things outside that individual.. if that is the case the child is only here as a means to someone ELSE's ends.. The only reason anyone is put into existence is because of someone else's ends.. The gift of life is for others, not for the gift itself. You cannot give a gift to something that didn't exist in the first place.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
From a previous blog "Condemned to Existence"
Anti-Procreation Movement
The Anti-Procreation Movement is a philosophical movement that claims that the human condition is one of profound suffering and that one should refrain from spreading this suffering to a new generation by abstaining from procreation.
Contents |
Connections with other movements
Roots in Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism
Looking back in history, the Anti-Procreation Movement (or anti-procreationism) is very similar to the philosophy of early 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. In his magnum opus, The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer laid down a metaphysical, and ethical framework concerning the nature of existence. According to his views (which have been labeled as Philosophical Pessimism by later philosophers), existence is really a seething, striving, force, or "Will" that manifests itself in representational form as the phenomena of the physical universe (see neutral monism). Schopenhauer's claim is that the Will is categorically suffering for all living beings, and is especially so for human beings. The reason for the greater suffering in Humans is the assertion that Humans, can self-reflect on their own pain as well as feel pain more acutely (in the everyday strife of living, natural disasters, emotional anguish, boredom, and the ceaseless striving for goals). In his work, Schopenhauer advocated aesthetic contemplation and compassion as two lower level ways to solve the problem of suffering. However, he wrote that the most fundamental way for the individual to end suffering is to retreat to living as a hermit orascetic who cuts all physical relations with the world, therefore "ending the Will-to-Live". Along with this, one should not act in the supreme Will's command by procreating the will unto another individual and thus, giving into the ultimate demand of the Will-to-Live (procreating the Will and its suffering to a new individual human form).
Contemporaneous anti-procreation and childfree movements
The Anti-Procreation Movement is a modern day movement that has its roots in the Philosophical Pessimism of the 19th century. However, the modern Anti-Procreation Movement elaborates more on the inherent reasons for the suffering of the human condition. It also differs from its Schopenhauerian forbearer because it does not see a solution to the problem of suffering in the already existing human, only a solution to future suffering (by preventing the birth of a future possible being). Anti-Procreation can also be associated with other contemporary movements that have less philosophical and more political tones. The biggest movement related to this is the Childfreemovement. The Childfree movement is a loose association of individuals who choose not to have children. This movement however, is mainly geared towards those individuals who simply do not desire to have children, rather than advocating that no other individual should have children either. A group more closely related to the anti-procreation philosophy, is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. This movement advocates the end or the gradual end of human procreation (but for environmental reasons rather than reasons regarding suffering of humanity). Some smaller groups have closer ties to the Anti-Procreation Movement such as the Moral Childfree Movement, which advocates that people should not have children for moral reasons, specifically because of the suffering that the child would have to endure.
Major concepts
The three categories of the human condition
Anti-Procreationism is a kind of Philosophical Pessimism in the tradition of Arthur Schopenhauer's pessimistic Weltanschauung. Its main idea is that there are three categories of human existence: survival (sometimes interchangeable with "work"), boredom, and entertainment. These categories are forms of suffering that are inherently bestowed upon all evolutionarily normal, self-reflecting humans.
The first category is Survival which is the constant struggle to stay alive and keep metabolic and physiological comfort levels in stasis. The struggle of survival, which is believed to take place in a certain socio-economic cultural context, is one form of suffering that cannot be avoided easily once one comes into existence.
Boredom is the second category of suffering inherent in the human condition. According to the Anti-Procreation Movement philosophy, the unique human brain/mind is in a constant struggle to flee from boredom which is described as a deep emotional feeling of ennui and despair. This category of boredom usually takes place after all apparent survival activities have been achieved, but may also take place during survival activities as well. Boredom, is an unpleasant feeling similar in to the existential void discussed in psychologist Viktor Frankl's book, Man's Search for Meaning. Anti-Procreationists claim that this boredom, is not confined to one's culture or to only modern cultures, but is a cross-cultural phenomenon that occurs in all human societies.
The third and last category of this tripartite system isEntertainment. Entertainment, according to the Anti-Procreation Movement, is viewed as any goal an individual must contrive to "flee" the feeling of boredom (the second category). This entertainment can be seen as the endless real and potential ways that humans fill their time (other than survival). The various forms usually take place in a cultural context but can have some cultural universals such as:religious expression, art, and philosophy. However some forms of entertainment are restricted to specific cultures (i.e. watching tv, creating new business ventures, going out with friends, etc. are all Westernized forms of entertainment). The entertainment can go on infinitum in various combinations and varieties, and range the whole human gamut of behavior and thought that are not associated directly with survival. The common world view that entertainment should be seen as a desirable pursuit, is turned on its head in Anti-Procreationism. According to this philosophy, entertainment is the struggle against boredom and the realization that one cannot "just be". According to this reasoning, humans subsist in a constant battle against boredom or a constant pursuit of "finding the best way to kill time".
Solution to suffering
According to the Anti-Procreation Movement, the inherent suffering in the human condition can never be overcome for those already born into existence. However, it can be prevented in a future generation. By not procreating, one is not bearing the burden of the three categories of the human condition on a potential next generation and thus preventing suffering in a potential future being. This movement does not advocate suicide for two reasons. The first is that we are naturally averse to suicide for evolutionary and psychological reasons, and suicide, and thoughts of suicide can add to one's pain and suffering in the lead up to the actual suicide attempt.
The second reason is the idea of "annihilist Utilitarianism". Utilitarianism is an ethical system whereby the the moral worth of an action is determined by whatever brings the greatest pleasure for the greatest amount of people. Annihilist Utilitarianism claims that the greatest good is preventing future potential beings from being born (being "anti-procreation"). The only way to maximize the greatest good (preventing future potential beings from being born) is to spread the "good word" of the Anti-Procreation philosophy so that the greatest amount of people already born will be affected by this philosophy and consequently not procreate.
Sites
Similar movements
Eduard von Hartmann
Are you familiar with the 19th century philosopher, Eduard von Hartmann? In 1869, he wrote the book Philosophy of the Unconscious. As an aside, some modern philosophers have noted this book as being a bridge between Schopenhauer's notion of Will and Freud's notion of the Unconscious. Anyways, in this book Hartmann outlines his ideas, which I summarize below:
From source Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Human life labors under three illusions: (1) that happiness is possible in this life, which came to an end with the Roman Empire; (2) that life will be crowned with happiness in another world, which science is rapidly dissipating; (3) that happy social well-being, although postponed, can at last be realized on earth, a dream which will also ultimately be dissolved. Man’s only hope lies in “final redemption from the misery of volition and existence into the painlessness of non-being and non-willing.” No mortal may quit the task of life, but each must do his part to hasten the time when in the major portion of the human race the activity of the Unconscious shall be ruled by intelligence, and this stage reached, in the simultaneous action of many persons volition will resolve upon its own non-continuance, and thus idea and will be once more reunited in the Absolute.
Human life labors under three illusions: (1) that happiness is possible in this life, which came to an end with the Roman Empire; (2) that life will be crowned with happiness in another world, which science is rapidly dissipating; (3) that happy social well-being, although postponed, can at last be realized on earth, a dream which will also ultimately be dissolved. Man’s only hope lies in “final redemption from the misery of volition and existence into the painlessness of non-being and non-willing.” No mortal may quit the task of life, but each must do his part to hasten the time when in the major portion of the human race the activity of the Unconscious shall be ruled by intelligence, and this stage reached, in the simultaneous action of many persons volition will resolve upon its own non-continuance, and thus idea and will be once more reunited in the Absolute.
It is interesting to know that point 3 from above may refer to such utopian political theories as communism, fascism, and the like. The main ethical import from Unconscious is that we should try to find individual happiness in as many endeavors as possible in the ironic goal that, at one point in the future, humans will realize that all endeavors of happiness are in vain, and unsatisfying. At this point, we as humans should collectively come to a realization that preventing future generations and discontinuing the species should be our final goal- as this will redeem the species from existence and consciousness (and hence suffering and despair).
This is certainly one of the first systematic and ideological attempts to elucidate a logic for antinatalism. This system, as most German Idealist systems tended to be, is wrought with overmined and reified concepts such as "Will", "Idea", "Absolute", etc. However, the logical thread need not be thrown away with the overwrought concepts that come with it. His three points above, and Hartmann's insistence that one day our pursuits will dry-up in a species-wide realization of unsatisfactoriness is intriguing. Ironically, in this vision of the future, the "progress" of technology and science will simply lead to more realization that all pursuits are in vain and that life is unsatisfactory as a whole. The final overture of humanity will be to collectively end it so that future generations will spared its existence.
1.) Does Hartmann have some cogent insights in his conclusions?
2.) Will our species, at some point, get to a place of realization that all pursuits are in vain and that life is unsatisfactory?
3.) Will we collectively decide to discontinue the species at some future point, when we have exhausted our pursuits of happiness?
4.) Is the world ironically moving towards an era of exhaustion with existence by our rapid advancements in technology and science?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)