Is Having Children Wrong? | Philosophy Tube
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июл 2024
- Is it morally okay to have babies? Anti-natalists like philosopher David Benatar would argue that nonexistence avoids pain, unlike existence, but is he correct? What does that mean for reproductive rights?
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
David Benatar, "Better Never to Have Been" tinyurl.com/z9e2qj3
John Broome, “Should We Value Population?” in The Journal of Political Philosophy
Christine Overall, "Why Have Children?" tinyurl.com/z67sjtg
Glow shine animation by AAVFX: • 4K 60FPS 2160p Perfect...
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it. 
Развлечения
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad move." ~ Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Satire adopted as pseudo- philosophy.
Love it! 42!
I swear, if I ever find out who did that, I will kick them in the balls and/or ovaries and/or nearest thing such a being would have to genitalia, and then make them clean up the mess they made.
@@georginawhitby1320 No such thing as "pseudo philosophy". Any ideas can be called philosophy.
Hahahahaahhahahahaha
You can't guarantee your offsprings happiness or health, so why gamble with it?
Hi Point C9 Bingo!
I can't guarantee my safety when I go driving. But I can do a lot of things to influence it, minimise risks and so on. Life is a relentless series of gambles. I don't see how what you're saying is supposed to convince anyone of anything.
@@pseudonymousbeing987 Well you are making that choice for yourself plus you somewhat know the risks that you are taking, not really the same for having a kid right? Accurate analogy would be more like you are forcing somebody else to drive and they also dont know the risks.
>Life is a relentless series of gambles.
Thinks this is a counter argument.
Imagine you are physically and mentally healthy and you are financially secured and 90% chances you would be same and improve in your upcoming years ,That gives a sense of security to Bring someone and give them Good upbringing.
Times where you dont Have to Over work to provide for your kids and you can spend plenty of time with them keeping track of their physical and mental health .Good upbringing could make one enable to get success in their life .
Worst case scenario if he suffers any health issue and fail to work ,You still got his back because you been financially strong and you can still feed your kid !
Issue Nowdays is most people are failure and unhappy individuals decide to become parents in hope to be happy but majority fail miserably. Too many reasons behind it including Lack of Assesment and Long term Planning ‘ .
We had no choice in being born...but it is against the law to take your own life. Who the hell is really in control?
I agree with you, taking your life is fought against. Where is it illegal though?
@@hawaii3231
"Illegal" is the wrong word. More like stigmatized.
@@hawaii3231 it's illegal in the sense that they will prevent you from doing so. Of course they can't punish you if you succeed
They don't want people kill themselves, because they are (most likely) taxpayers and consumers. It is all about money.
@@backsteinfisch3894 I didn't think of it that way. That is really f***ed up. I only saw it from humanity perspective. Thanks for the new view point.
Just adopt, those kids are already here we might as well help them out
💚🌼
I used to think this was a solution but adoption is neither that simple nor ethical. It's pretty much always been terrible actually
Foster parenting is more ethical, go with that
@@abolishpolice5232 Would you care to elaborate or at least sight a source ?
Adoption isn't that easy.
Kat Foster HAVING BABIES IS ALSO NOT EASY IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
I am a retired nurse. If you're not sure about reproducing, spend a day visiting a children's hospital and a nursing home.
Is that supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?
@@JDog2656A Ideal, Semi-Paradisiacal world requires a Ideal Number of People and Strict Guidelines to adhere to. Eugenics, Technology, Civilization Restraints…etc. You would exist in a State of both Progress & Stagnation.
The fact that these Homes exist means this is a Very Bad thing.
I will never have have children. I can't risk them turning out like me, I wouldn't wish this life upon my worst enemy. It's not that I'm terrible, it's just the world and society sucks at utilizing people like me, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
What kind of a person are you?
I understand.
Our circumstances are probably different but I relate heavily to the sentiment. My existence feels isolating most of the time. I wish you well, stranger.
Birth is the number one cause of human problems.
No it's not, its overbreeding
@Green Elephant says likely a white person who consumes more resources than hundreds of brown people in the global south.
@Cory Burns I don't understand your comparison.
@Green Elephant no one needs to be nuked. If it were possible, we could just sterilize everyone (I mean the entire human race) Put some shit in the water, idk. That way, no violence needs to happen.
Maximum of two children per couple, compulsory sterilization after.
I'm a little bit surprised that you haven't touched the topic of consent in this regard. Namely, the fact that there is no consent from a new individual for being born, no chance to weigh pros and cons of existing and make an informed choice. I think this is an important issue to consider within this ethical discussion.
Nevertheless, great video, thank you!
That is a good point. When we have the information to know if a persons life would be worth it it would be to late.
Well, you are free to remove your consent to existence at any point, so not being able to ask a human egg if it wants to be fertilized doesn't weigh as heavily IMHO. OTOH it's really hard to ask non-existent people if it was ok to not have created them.
But then its like, there is absolutely no way to get consent from a non-person. We are basically asking, do people who don't exist have rights? Are they autonomous? And I don't think we want to say yes to that.
"it's really hard to ask" is a potential excuse for a lot of immoral stuff. It's really hard to ask a drunkenly unconscious person to give you all their money, but it doesn't suddenly become okay to take their money.
To be honest, I don't think this reason is enough to leave consent out of the conversation. Maybe there is such a reason, but this is not one.
Odinokov Well, in the case of a drunkenly unconscious person, there actually is a very easy solution in case you have serious doubt about their willingness to part with their money: wait until they sober up and wake up. Then ask them.
In the case of for example comatose people or unconscious people who are in urgent need of treatment there is no easy way, so things become complicated. Same with children: no easy way but a decision has to be made nonetheless.
You seem to argue that not producing a child is somehow a safer, more warranted choice. That's simply false. You can't ask an egg if it wants to be fertilized, so it can neither consent to being fertilized nor to _not_ being fertilized. Like I said, if anything, not producing a particular human being is a decision you can never undo. Producing a human being is something that person can easily undo at their own leisure. Just don't throw yourself in front of a train because that's a dick's way to go.
I'm glad this is no longer such a taboo subject.
Sadly though it is still extremely taboo
ElevatorMan5482 ElevExperiencing Productions to add to that, it's also very sad that people who do not desire to have offspring are looked at as super strange. It's baffling to me that such a large majority of people automatically want to make and raise more humans, and that it's so confusing to them when someone does not.
@@joshuaneal7552 It shouldn't confuse ANYONE now that the coronavirus pandemic is here to stay for years to come. Anyone confused by this is retarded
Try to bring up anti natalism when someone announces a pregnancy and experience first hand how much it's no longer a taboo....
@@exoticcar5482 but this is accurate...people are evil
"How can I bring a child into such a terrible world"
People say that all the time in movies- right before they go ahead and have a kid.
same difference
I'm not gonna have one 😉
+Jason Wood Quantify how many movies do characters, who have kids, say that before they have kids.
You are making up some bullshit strawman.
the only example I can think of is in the movie The Rock, where Nicolas Cage basically goes through that entire arc in a single scene.
That's because they are very clever and have spotted something odd about Benatar's argument
Yeah world is absolutely terrible and horrible , let me have one who will save this world
In one of my early science classes we were talking about the future of mankind and how bleak it was or something like that... any way I simply asked my professor why don't we stop having children. oh my, the whole class jumped on me. I wish more people had critical thinking skills.
Think about it though, every one of us is the product of thousands of years of interbreeding, generation upon generation. Evolution has ingrained reproduction deep in our psyche. The people who decided not to have children died off. Because of this people dont think critically when in comes to to having children. We like to blame people here but real culprit is evolution itself.
Daniel Ahmed Good observation.
Not everyone wants kids though. I for one have never been at all interested in "breeding"
@@zompired2998 Not interested in kids
Evolution does not ”do” anything, though. It is simply a pattern of natural processes we humans have decided to name in order to communicate concepts easier, patterns do not even truly exist, they are simply our interpretation of very similar or reminiscent information, so even my explanation is somewhat flawed.
I really enjoyed this video. "Is it ethical to have children?" Is a question that my dad and I often discuss since he knows that I don't want children. My biggest reasons for not wanting kids are mostly environmental and financial, but this suffering perspective is one I've never thought of. I found it very fascinating. So glad you're able to continue making thoughtful videos like these. Much love from California.
I'm glad that you have a parent who accepts the fact that you don't want children and will actually discuss it with you. Most of us don't, and I guess it shouldn't be shocking since they had kids so of course they're going to defend having children, but it's nice that you have a parent with an open mind who takes your views into consideration. I wish mine did.
Pls don't have children, mine need the resources and jobs.
@@ferencgazdag1406 They won't need them if you don't have them. But I guess you get a kick out of watching people struggle to survive don't you? Power hungry sadism ey?
Yes you're opening up to the philanthropic reasons for antinatalism.
Yeah I think we’re better off not having anymore Californians anyways if we’re gonna be honest here. You little fake environmentalist
My mom told me(im 38 and she 63) that I “cannot” use the “your created me so my life is your fault” anymore bc im an adult. I have mental illness and have problems integrating in our society. She is very Christian. Im a non believer. I dont know what to do. I almost always just want to die. I want to goto sleep and not wake up. I WANT to kill myself but I know this will hurt some people and maybe animals.. My dogs, they wont get “loved” like I love them if I were dead.
Being able to understand and accept this philosophy... I feel blessed but absurdly cursed at the same time.
Idk what to do anymore, man. I just dont know
Donald Mack I know how you feel. Your mom is wrong though, because it is her fault. I hope you can find a way to be happy.
Bro I am in the same situation. Mental illness with a difficult mother who refuses to take any accountability for hers and my no good dad option to have me while not even being parents anyway. If I never have exist then I would of never suffered its that simple it's a game to these breeders they think they can just drop you once your "18" like they didn't force you to live.
@@trevagraham1605 yes 100%
@@trevagraham1605 lol I couldn't help but laugh at the line "your mom is wrong though, because it is her fault"
It is factually correct.
It is not totally her fault cause life is more complex than that, but it certainly is partly her fault.
I very much agree with that having children _is_ wrong.
We should take care of the ones who already exists, the ones who have been abandoned, the ones who never asked to be brought to this world, but were dumped by the ones who brought them here.
They deserve a loving family more than something that doesn't even exist yet.
Also parenthood is super glorified, and most parents are miserable but do not feel allowed to say anything about it because parenthood is supposed to be an automatic ~"blessing"~
Your last bit is exactly why your first bit will never be the popular thing to do - everyone wants their mini mes and refuses to admit they are wrong for forcing more trauma victims to be into existence.
We can’t guarantee a child’s health, happiness, or success in this world; its a gamble not worth imposing.
even if we can guarantee any of that, we cannot just assume that person will like or enjoy being here. that is another assumption pro-natalist love. they just repeat the mantra: life is wonderful and beautiful.
Breeders live in an optimism bias bubble.
@The Naughty Police Well, I, personally, would rather exist as I am than not exist at all. while I cannot know for certain, I assume any children I might have would also rather exist than not.
@@bennpenn5105
not existing = no suffering no pain etc.
In case you have a life with much suffering/pain, you are really irrational...
@@bennpenn5105
Then be ready to provide for them even when they are grown ups!
You bring them into the world, children don’t owe you nothing but you do.
I never wanted to pass the pain on. Child free by choice.
@@nebhalabir1201 fuck bloodline
I'm 23 and this is kind of a more sophisticated argument for why I don't want children. Because it's another mouth to feed. But obviously Benatar went beyond that simplification...
"Absence of pain"... this phrase (or belief) implies there's someone appreciating this absence of pain, or that there *is* an absence of pain that's occuring somewhere. Where is this so-called "absence of pain" he speaks of occuring? Can he point to it? For who is this absence of pain occuring? There are only the consciousnesses/experiences that exist... The ones that are currently occuring... We didn't exist in some sort of deprivation state before being born/conceived. One doesn't get to appreciate their own lack of existence... It's completely absurd and illogical. It's no different than believing that people and animals that died are _resting in peace_ ... Again: there are only the experiences there are-that are currently being done by living brains (as consciousness is a function of living brains). I can't believe this illogic is gaining so much traction.
Nice to see the idea of antinatalism revised in such a cogent way. It was quite a hot topic on RUclips a few years ago and, to be frank, produced more heat than light, so your more measured approach is one I find really welcome.
One thing that emerged from previous discussions is the notion that we are all, to some extent, antinalists, inasmuch as we can probably all think of situations in which bringing a child into the world is probably a bad idea (e.g. when they have a congenital disease, when the circumstances of their upbringing is likely to be deeply unpleasant etc). More rigorous antinatalists such as Benatar simply systematise the idea, suggesting that all procreation entails putting offspring into potentially harmful situations.
I believe there have even been legal cases brought against parents by their children who argue that, by being 'non-consensually brought into existence', they have been put deliberately into harm's way. (Although I'm pretty sure none of these have been successful).
The Benatar material you introduce is interesting, and as you point out has been critiqued, but I'd be interested in your take on this from a Kantian perspective. When we bring children into the world are we treating them simply as ends, as providers of the satisfactions of parenthood, and disregarding their (potential) agency?
Worldviews aren't heritable. If they were, it would've been impossible for negative views on procreation to have ever sprung up in the first place. This view has only gained more currency in our digital age where information & alternative views are at our fingertips, and where parents can't keep their children indoctrinated as easily as was the case in eras passed.
Allow for open inquiry, minimize the social taboos around oppositional views on this topic, and you'll find the household indoctrination factor overridden more & more.
It was a quite a bit interesting a few years ago, especially when DerivedEnergy was still around. :(
conferencereport
thank u for the comment. I need more information about the legal cases against parents u mentioned, can you help with that ?
If philosophy leads to infertility, then eventually minds prone to philosophy will phase out of existence'
This is also true of non-philisophical thinkers..
@Proud Goy exactly!! Nothing should exist that's what anti natalism is all about
Existence is a curse. I am glad there are many like-minded thinkers in this comment section.
It's a curse for YOU.
@@MzTypeOHnegative It is a curse for the intelligent beings, but a blessing for the ignorant.
Bin Young the way you responded is intellectually deficient. Being an antinatalist did not make you a better person clearly.
Mortalists are clearly deluding themselves and in this way they help maintaining and even enlarging the suffering in the world.
Check the r/antinatalism on reddit, a whole community there if u want to talk about ur mind
I did not make the choice of being born, my parents did this out of selfish reasons, they wanted an little baby to cuddle and so fully aware they convicted there own children to sure suffering and a guaranteed dead sentence . Breeding is legalised cruelty and murder on your own offspring .
Then we go to heaven.
@@abortedbaby1335 if it exists and we qualify for it
Children should be able to sue their parents. Maybe breeders would think twice before they rub uglies unprotected.
@@waifu_png_pl6854 No one qualifies for heaven on the basis of their own merit, salvation is a free gift.
"Nothing" is better than "something bad".
YES!
YES!
YES!
YES!
That argument makes no sense. Nothing has no characteristics on which it can be judged for or compared to. So it is impossible for nothing to be better than something bad.
You can't die if you were never born
Roll safe**
Antinatalism is the only philosophy that makes sense to me. My great thanks to David Benatar for explaining my frustration and confusion with existence all this years.
Same.
Fall Shock
Do you mean it's sad that people don't think about those things or that those things are sad themself?
in the metro today:
a young & healthy looking father was babysitting his daughter while she begged for $?
it hurts to see this!
The same here. It validates the suffering that so many people experience rather than "it's up to you " and "life what you make of it" tactless attitude..
Nice way of not taking any responsibility in your life and becoming a slave.
Stop with me, break the cycle
Isn't having kids selfish?
Jacob Einstein Having kids for the purpose of continuing your culture sound pretty selfish.
Jacob Einstein Glory point of view?
"a view that your people should achieve as much as humanly possible"
Ah, nice to see Social Darwinism or views similar enough to it are alive & well. If the ingredient to _your_ _people_ stroking their collective egos successfully (that's all this _glory_ talk boils down to) is the involuntary suffering of the out-group, is there any limit on that suffering that would see the out-group's interests start being prioritized ahead? Any point at which you'd be tempted to trade-off some marginal benefit to the in-group in order to, say, prevent The Brazen Bull effect occurring to the out-group? Or is this egoic moral myopia non-negotiable across all circumstances?
If the in-group is defined through characterological criteria like "any individual who largely shares my values, ethics, interests, hobbies, sense of humor, artistic taste, etc..." as opposed to generic ethnic or consanguineous criteria, you'd have half an argument, insofar as those _specific_ features of the in-group entail quality-control, while those of the out-group promote ignorance or suffering or some other negative trait.
Jacob Einstein Why should we try to achieve it?
It is. It's actually one of the most selfish things you can ever do as there is absolutely no selfless reason to breed.. It's an entirely self-serving act for those who have children that only benefits those who do the breeding and not for the person who has existence forced on them.
Wake up people
This ain’t happy place
It’s happy for me, I’ve never suffered 😂
Depends where you live in I guess, can’t ask kylies kids whether life is worth living compared to someone in India
Enibokun Ero that day will eventually come, Trust me
Lonaj Gamer idk I’m happy asl, and all the suffering makes the pleasure worth while. Also, someone can’t just not exist, antinatalist or not, life is inevitable
@Erik Kuci u call life a game? Lol
I have to tell you about what happened to me when I was suffering from ovarian cysts and just wanted to get over with these ovaries that were causing me so much pain. When I was 31 years old, I grew an ovarian cyst(s) that took over all the space in my abdomen. I couldn't breathe or anything.
They asked me many times if I wanted to have children and I have never wanted children since I was a little girl. I gave them several reasons why I didn't want to have children (genetic disorders. autism. ecology, no desire for children, age [I was 31], no money to support children, and several other considerations). I wanted them to take out my ovaries because they were already having problems and causing me an excessive amount of pain and suffering. Instead, I woke up from my surgery to remove the ovarian cysts to find that both my ovaries were intact. It's been several years since then and I've suffered an immense amount because they wanted to make sure, as a female in her 30s, that I should be able to have kids. If I wanted to have fucking kids, I would have had them in my 20s. I know I don't want them. I think some people should have kids, but not all of us should. If you are intelligent and don't have any serious genetic diseases that you know of and can provide a good home for a family, then by all means please have children. If you are going to be annoyed by the children that you have, put them up for adoption. But if you are totally messed up like I am, it's probably better not to have any. Humanity will survive without our contribution to the species.
reading this makes me so angry, the doctors should have listened to you.
That’s such a nightmare, I’m sorry.
If I didn't exist and was asked if I wanted to exist, I probably would have rolled the dice and went for it. But, now that I'm here, I wish I never was and I certainly would never bring another innocent soul into existence.
Thank you, good sir! I have the same exact reasoning as you. We are brought into existence because our parents wanted kids. So fucking unfair.
@mary sunshine Greetings. Care to explain how fairness/unfairness is not related to the process of being born without having a choice in it?
Well said a fact..... I truly appreciate your words..
Suffering > nothing
Just be angry about anything, scream to the sky for the crime of being. Hate towards god, see where you ended up if you keep doing that for the rest of your life, its not pretty.
The supposed rebuttal you discuss in the second part is purely a matter of semantics, and irrelevant. The phrasing Benatar uses is a bit unfortunate when he says that it would be better off for us not to have be born, but without people, there is no suffering, and that much is important. If you do not conceive a child, a child will not suffer. - simple as that.
Also, it's not really the fact that any person will suffer some amount of suffering that's important here. A person's life might very well be happy and with very little of it. Instead, it's the fact that there is always a risk that they will be subjected to horrible suffering that makes procreation ethically problematic. No matter where you live and how well off you are, there is no guarantee that your child will suffer terrible psychological or physical pain. Its gambling with someone else's fate, and that in itself is unethical.
The only argument I can think of that could possibly undermine Benatar's proposition is the fact that, ultimately, everyone dies - and with death, both happiness and suffering cease, as if the people who experienced them were never born at all. But that is only valid within a completely materialist worldview.
Sometimes it's better to say that people are not worse off on account of absence goods (a brute fact) while the experiential disadvantages within existence are real.
Benatar explains that death in itself is bad because it involves the loss of the self. So for the individual dying is not like never having been born at all (quite apart from the suffering that goes hand in hand with dying). Death would be less bad if painless suicide were available to all, but it would still be a bad in the sense that the self gets destroyed.
james_gats that’s the materialism the guy above talks about. How do we know the self ceases to be? It’s not wise to assume things we have no knowledge about. I have a few points about the self or the soul. 1) Phaedo 2) The soul/the subject itself, is not materialistic 3) Being cannot just jump into non-being, that is not possible. Not to mention that non-being doesn’t exist
The self ceases to be unless you believe in idiocies. If you want to believe you're still around after you die I can't argue with you (neither can Benatar).
james_gats how do you know that it ceases to be?
I’m glad to hear that antinatalism exists and I’m not a soulless monster for thinking that having kids sounds immoral. I was raised catholic but I recently identified as atheist and I was trying to find non-religious reason for why I’d want to have a kid and I couldn’t think of any
@Linet Akinyi In the short term it seems we’re likely going to experience many downsides in the future from overpopulation, so not having kids is respectable from the standpoint of the species. On the larger cosmic scale it also seems now that our species will inevitably die out some day, making its preservation seem futile to some. You could even argue that our tribal attachment to our own species altogether is just an evolutionary design that survived due to the benefits human cooperation has had on our ability to survive and reproduce.
All that being said, I’m too young right now to decide whether I want children, and in the future I may well want to be a parent. So no judgement to anyone who decides they want to raise children!
@Linet Akinyi ngl continuing the species doesn't seem like that interesting or valid of a reason
What kind of hubris is required to pluck a soul from the void and force it through this thresher?
I'm glad you made this video. I am for the most part against reproduction and have been sterilized, and sometimes I feel as though my views must seem deranged. But, like anyone, I hold that view because I think it is logically and morally sound. You do receive the "what if your parents had never made you?" argument, and it's like...??? So what if they hadn't? I wouldn't be here to care about it. If I was never born I could not possibly regret not having been born.
& I am completely willing to accept every counterargument onto my own person. "If creating new lives is wasteful, then your life must be wasteful too." Yup. As an American in this day and age I take up more resources than I have a right to and contribute very little, if anything. "So because I could pass on physical/mental illness I shouldn't reproduce?" It was passed on to me and made me miserable, and is one of many reasons I won't be reproducing in turn. "If we should take care of the lives we already have instead of making new ones, maybe your parents should have adopted instead." Well hey, there's an idea!
That's really cool to have your input on this! Thanks!
you aren't deranged, that's just a bullshit-word conformists use to shame anybody unlike themselves. You would be "deranged" if you wanted to have a kid just to abuse or ignore it, like breeders do.
@@fakenoose8978 No she's pretty deranged
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 excellent argument.
Thank you! I’ve always wanted kids when I was growing up. I thought it was a thing that’s necessary for happiness, as many people do it. I wanted to have kids because of the happiness it would bring me, that it was a fulfilling life. I know now that it is not fulfilling bringing a child into this world but only glorified selfishness. Largely I spent my life not worrying about it because kids were a long way off, along the way I was actually forced to think about it as I came out as transgender at 15 and obviously wanted hormones. Yea, it was risky to start testosterone blockers and estrogen without doing anything about my future procreation. I don’t ever regret it though. I learned how the future generations don’t have to follow any sort of traditions, how my life is just filled with pain, and other people’s life is filled with pain that they have no control over. Humanity’s future is bleak, we can not procreate without first fixing the world’s problems. High birth rate is always not going to solve the world’s problems, but make new ones. I’m proud of being sterile!
I'm kind of anti-natalist because I know what a pain life is and I do not wish it upon anyone else.
And also because humans seriously damage the planet and all life on it.
I'm guessing because of basic survival instincts? I'd love to here his views.
I'm not going to kill myself because I am scared of the pain that I will cause others if I pass away.
The suicide itself can be painful and scary, so I'd rather not.
(I have attempted suicide before but I feel better now.)
because killing one's self is very difficult to do. There are a lot of cognitive mechanisms preventing that action. Like hope. However wanting to not exist but not wanting to die are strangely different feelings and are a kind of suffering too. Compare it to sleeping vs death. One may love sleeping, be totally fine with sleeping 15hrs a day or even with being in a coma but be completely against dying.
daiitokumyouou899 Exactly!
Exactly! Thank you!
Expecting a perfect world with no pain is truly hellish. To think that bringing kids into the world is bad because we all experience some form of discomfort or pain is extremely neurotic and selfish, even in a perfect world a person with that kind of mindset would never be satisfied
🤡
So what reason do u have to reproduce?
@@antinatalistwitch111 shit is too expensive and the nuclear family has been torn apart is a better excuse not to reproduce, but if shit was better and people had morals I’d definitely have kids. Honestly who knows. To each their own though, it’s just dumb and pessimistic/nihilistic as hell to view life in such a cynical way. Like if you really believe life is that bad you’re just ignorant of all the beauty and great things in the world. That’s what neo leftist philosophy tends to do to people though, honestly. Make them fucking depressed as shhiiiiiiit. Lame.
I'm not going to have kids
ermmmm... did you want an applause?
@@catvideis shut up breeder
Best decision me and my partner have made. Some people don't know how much hard work it is to raise a child and how much attention a child needs. I already am busy with looking after my aging mother, she had me later in life and she's getting more dependent on me.
@@zwinkyecstasy thank you queen,wish you a loooooong and happy life ❤
@@_tkcsa_ Thank you, likewise 👌💕
Procreation Russian Roulette? That's it, not that any of the baby breeder types get it. They're too busy having fun playing their life creation experiments without considering one single consequence of their actions.
Yep. I hate when breeders complain about problems they could've prevented by not breeding in the first place.
Bonnie Hundley
You sound like a female incel miss.
GTS
Awe, how cute. You actually think that’s an insult 😂. Smh, your thinking regarding these interpersonal, generational, socio-economic and demographic matters is one of the reasons why your brand of leftism will never succeed. Stay mad you incels/femcels 😁.
GTS you’re an antinatalist and yet you aren’t a good person. I guess accepting antinatalism doesn’t cause any of us to actually morally ascend to a higher plane or becoming better at rhetoric so I am going to pass. Hope you stay true to your beliefs and don’t create children in the next 40 years of your life.
Get sterilized and shut up
even before the child is born, the parents keep talking about what they want them to be and what kind of life should they have. that doesn't sound like love or selfless at all to me. it's like constructing a character in video games except that it's not a game.
Absolutely .
i’m legit 100% down with antinatalism
I love your RUclips name.
Good, go spare the world of your petty existance
@@luka2298 cookie cutter response. Do better
@@luka2298 That was pathetic, your IQ must be painstakingly low.
EDIT: "Painfully"
@@HeyWelcomeToMyWorld That's not what 'painstaking' means.
It was before my birth that I had no need for my birth. My mother and my father, apparently they were the ones who had a need for my birth.
Thanks mom, thanks dad.
(Laughing)
That's acknowledging something both a lot of antinatalists and vegans forget: Everything happens because of a preceding cause. "Needless" can never accurately describe an action by any sentient being.
"Non-existence is not a state that everyone can be in"
Yeah, tell that to my girlfriend, who lives in Canada, I swear, she's real, not made-up, and we are totally doing it
Is there actually any valid justification for bringing a conscious human being unsolicited into existence while it is sure that this innocent child by birth is condemned to death. Furthermore I like to add that all breeders know full well that every new mortal will have to endure suffering in its life no matter how short lived that life may be and jet they push their desire forward and taking the risk (a gamble rather) - not for themselves but on behalf of someone else who has no saying in it - on a possible horrible existence. This is legalised capital criminal behaviour to say at least......
There is no justification
Hello Shalashaska, thank you , just my thoughts, it's a very bad thing to do.....
Yes there is
You presuppose there is something wrong with death and the end of life. I disagree. And "breeders"? This is really dehumanizing terminology. Where is all this hate coming from? I am sorry you suffered so much and that despite the suffering you were not able to get past it.
Hello Catvideis, glorifying death and the ending of life is what mortalists do, so I'm not surprised by your confession.
How can someone really experience enjoyment I ask myself when you know all the grief and pain there is ? When I'm start laughing I start to feel guilty.....a pointless agony is likely a better description of life, at least the life of someone with a flilantropic attitude . After all, no good deed rests unpunished. To fully enjoy life one has to be totally unscrupulous, non empathetic and super egoistic of character.
For such people life is one big roller coaster of joy, unrestrained pleasure and ecstasy. Never the less also for these kind of people there is no garantee, derailing of the roller coaster is not excluded and it is a certainty that the roller coaster ends up in station terminus to.......because one can only live in the moment, the last conscious moment is determinative to conclude what life is.....all the last moments of other people I've witnessed where full of suffer, pain and grief, therefore life is suffering..... that's why I say " it's better never to have been"
I decided to be child-free, in my teens, for other reasons, and this makes total sense to me. Even if a person leads a pain free life, the dread of death and nonexistence is a form of suffering and all humans suffer it. Creating a human to go through this suffering is cruel. We're racing headlong to the destruction of our habitat and all the violence and chaos that will happen along the way. Why have children, just so they can go through climate collapse and violence? I have been living in ever increasing physical pain and the moment it gets intolerable, I'm "taking a trip to Oregon."
Your child comes home from school bullied and beat up. You tell them, "I'm sorry that I gave birth to you. You wouldn't have had to been through that otherwise."
Exactly.
Imagine😂
@@jenniferr9624 You're a psychopath
@@Craig121000 That's called being a shit parent
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 I am preventing someone from suffering. How am I a psychopath?
Finally someone who talks about this , everytime i talk about this people think im wierd or sound cruel but im speakin truth
Listen to your real world people not a random guy in this intenet bubble
@@basiert
Most "real world people" are unfortunately really emotional driven, in case they never thought about it before...
I often talk about it too but I just get weird looks from my mom but I still often talk to my parents about philosophy and maybe some classmates or any relatives or people I know or am close with i guess
My parents having me as a child was the biggest mistake that they ever made and I will never forgive them for that.
same
Same. I should have been aborted.
Nobody knows what you have been through in life so never allow someone to shame u or tell u to go if u don't like it here.
Same
Free will does not exist. That's a topic which you should dive into because once you realize that free will does not exist, you wouldn't be able to resent your parents.
I am strongly considering a vasectomy for these very reasons + the environmentalist angle, but I'd love to have a family with adopted and/or step-children.
Debrim Aybar I believe that adoption is the only truly moral option to take if you want a child
I salute you, fellow future vasectomy patient! I got mine in the 1990s: zero regrets!
I so desperately want to adopt a child (Now do I have the mental stamina to actually parent a kid. Idk we are still trying to figure that out). Any reason to bring in my own biological child into this world is pretty vain and already sets a terrible foundation. While my motivation for adopt is mainly centered around helping the kids, and born out of the desire to help the community.
The problem with adopting kids and paying those huge sums to those agencies is that the agencies have human puppy mills in third world countries where they breed humans for that purpose.
I highly recommend adopting a cat from a shelter instead of a human. Do Not adopt dogs if your religion slanders dogs. That would be horrible for the dogs to live outside and not be allowed in the house with the family. Dogs are social beings same as humans they deserve love.
It’s criminal
When I said to My Parents Life is Painful and then My Parents say Its just in your Mind. 😑
Pain is objective experience yes it is in your mind but that dosen't change anything. You can simply tell them that their lust/love is just in their minds too.
I think growing up poor and in a filthy, abusive household like I did helps you see life stripped of all the positive filters a lot of people put on it. Human consciousness is a tragic abomination. I wish I hadn't been born, and I hate that religious indoctrination as a kid has made me terrified that I'm wrong in being an atheist and will burn in Hell if I just end my suffering on earth.
I was happy before I was born.
Having kids is genuinely the most selfish thing a person can do
ehhhhhh
There's no escaping this truth.
@@blorkpovud1576 no it isn't
It might also be interesting to look at 'Better Never To Have Been Believed' by Campbell Brown (if you haven't already done so). In it he argues for an 'asymmetry of obligation', mirroring Benatar's asymmetry, but focused on parental obligations. He asks the following:
If a set of potential parents knew with absolute certainty that their offspring would have a life only of unending pleasure, would they have an obligation to produce said offspring? Most folk would say no No.
On the other hand, if another set of potential parents were informed that their progeny were guaranteed a life of pain and suffering would they have an obligation to refrain from bringing that person into existence? Intuitively most people would answer in the affirmative.
Edited: 'a life only of unending pleasure' substituted for 'an entirely pain-free life.
If they were told that their children will have a life of unending pleasure they would have said yes right?? Why have you written no?
@@shri7604it's not whether or not they'd have the children, it's about whether or not they are morally required to have the children
I wish I were never born
I don’t want kid’s and I’m fine it’s my body my choice my happiness don’t ruin someone’s lifestyle
Here is a new reason i found from reading comments, some people do enjoy their lives but others don't. And the answer clicks, if we exist some of us will enjoy it but some of us won't, on the opposite end if we don't exist no one will complain. tada! That easy, as long as you are not selfish, you will agree that anti-natalism only has benifits and no down side.
I hate to use the word "selfish" but that's what i can come up with, because i have a great life and i don't mind continue living, but when ever the thought of someone suffering out in the world i can't have a good reason why we should continue humanity. It's just endless suffering to some people and living in a world where we stand on top of those people is just simply extremly unfair.
Whats fair in life?
I think part of what's wrong with antinatalism is the believe that pain is inherently bad. That a life without pain is optimal. But many philosophies, ideologies, religions, and beliefs have already figured iut that a life without pain isnt an optimal one. It is not about how much pain we are put through but how much we can stand and rise. Many people have "perfect" lifes and experience no exterior pain and no mental illnesses yet they end up taking their own lifes, sadly. So a complete absence of pain isnt ideal.
@@bernard7057 pain isn't inherently bad, it's about some people just don't enjoy life, and there is a reason for them to feel that way. you can't speak for them until you experience such feeling. and anti natalism can't be inherently bad, we are all gonna die and humanty is also gonna perish. so just speeding up that process isn't wrong at all. if you believe in religion unfortunately we just can't argue about this.
@@Zex-4729 Though I do agree with Benitar, I'm not sure about the idea that nobody existing would be ok. At the end of the day, new life will always flourish, and it will be increasingly difficult to convince everyone to go antinatalist. Let's say we do voluntarily go extinct, then what? A worse animal may very well take our place. Moreover, let's say we don't even reach that point, which is far more likely. If the antinatalists do manage to convince people to bear children less often, they may only convince people with good genes or values to withhold, but allow people who sincerely want to create families for "selfish" or vile purposes to continue breeding. This would leave humanity in a worse position than before.
Sorry, it's probably not a perfect rebuttal to the antinatalist argument, but I wanted to put it out there anyways.
I myself am considering adoption over naturalism, so I'd love to hear any convincing arguments here why any/all forms of child bearing may be immoral.
@@SAziz-mv8sj Antinatalism is a sound ideology, however it isnt a pragmatic one, and it isnt meant to be. The strongest contender for ethical rationality is evolution who sought to keep biochemical equilibrium, not the conscience/sentient beings from suffering. Reason vs instincts(One that has been wired since the dawn of life), is a pretty easy fight, and along with cognitive dissonance almost a completely one sided one for most. Adoption is ethical because they are already here, and if u make their condition better than say the orphanage they were brought in that would be reducing suffering. However, bringing a child into this world is unethical, because it isnt needed, an environmental toll, condemning them to death personally, and a gamble on their suffering(medical conditions, environment, financial plummets, surprise war, etc) For the probability that more and more rational people may believe in antinatalism, stop reproducing, and only the ones who selfishly and instinctively breed...well, as I said its a sound ideology not a pragmatic one so that would be their own problem. Those people hopefully develop anti natalist tendencies too. Its mostly individualistic, YOU making the decision to bring someone into this world is unethical, the person who comes into existence will be in a gamble of how much suffering they could have for the rest of their life until they die. Antinatalism doesnt care about humanity it cares about the person you force into existence, a shitty or risky or good enough until they die existence. Current existence problems are for other ideologies. Hope this helped. If it didnt please let me know because I actually need to write an essay on the subject so I'm noting rebuttals for my counterarguments. Thanks!
I feel like that response doesn't really get the argument. looking at a thought experiment and saying"that doesn't exist" sort of misses the point.
***** That sort of ignores everything else about the argument. We can imagine a "hypothetical person". This rebuttal would suggest that a person being created by an evil scientist who would only suffer for years and years would not have been better off not being created.
+Gage Baumgard 'This rebuttal would suggest that a person being created by an evil
scientist who would only suffer for years and years would not have been
better off not being created.'
No, it would suggest that such a comparison is completely meaningless, which is absolutely right.
David Parry You're ignoring the part about suffering being bad.
+Gage Baumgard I'm not ignoring it; I'm saying that it's meaningless to compare a miserable existence to non-existence.
David Parry That's ignoring the part about how a room with suffering in it is bad, and an empty room with neither suffering nor happiness is not bad.
I think the more moral thing to do in this world is to adopt a child rather than to bring a life into this fucked up life out of non existence. It's true that along with all the pain and suffering human existence brings it also brings some happiness and pleasure. However I don't feel that I have any right to make that decision for someone.
I have never done this as a child but as an adult sometimes I wake up at 3AM in horror knowing that one day we will all be completely gone as if we never existed. How could I put those anxieties onto a new human being. It really is a horrible, daunting feeling.
@@ruya789 You will still exist in Hell. Enjoy your doom.
@@SumDumGai5 You probably still believe in Santa as well
Em A. I understand your fears but personally death isn’t something we should even be afraid of-something the stoics like to hammer. I don’t identify with antinatalism but am sympathetic to its ideas. I believe teaching children that death should not be feared is something society must change
Agree with Your opinion
perfectly understand,and 💯💯 agree with benatar.
Let me explain this to you
no life= no pain
non-existence = zero pain
life = guaranteed pain and suffering with few moments of joy/pleasure
not even wealth,guarantee’s a pain free life.
Non-existence doesn't equate to "zero" pain, it's undefined. A value can't be derived when divided by zero.
@@darkengine5931 Who said anything about dividing by zero? If someone asks how many apples are left on a tree and there are none, do you tell them it's undefined? Stating otherwise would be dividing by zero by your weird logic
@@voreincorporated3056How would terms like "apples" become defined by non-existent people?
@@darkengine5931 Apples can't be defined without people existing, but why would that matter and how was it relevant to my question?
@@voreincorporated3056 If you can agree that pain and pleasure are relative to subjects, that relativity would be expressed mathematically through division. If there are no subjects, then the value is not 0, but the undefined result of a divide by zero.
Schop said it best:
"If you try to imagine as nearly as you can what an amount of misery, pain, and suffering of every kind the sun shines upon in its course, you will admit that it would be much better if on the earth as little as on the moon the sun were able to call forth the phenomena of life; and if, here as there, the surface were still in a crystalline state.
...
He who lives to see two or three generations is like a man who sits some time in the conjurer’s booth at a fair and witnesses the performance twice or thrice in succession. The tricks were meant to be seen only once, and when they are no longer a novelty and cease to deceive, their effect is gone.
If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence? Or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood."
Some people are lucky; Some people are not.
Some people are happy; Some people are not.
Some people are successful; Some people are not.
Some people live; Some people die.
On the grand scheme of everything in this vast universe & existence, Life is random.
And we are just nothing more than mere insignificant specks of dust in this indifferent universe.
I love this comment
Of course non-existence is a state you can be in. In fact, we've all been in it for billions of years already, until our parents broke that streak 😜.
You can’t be in a state if you don’t exist
@@aidangerson287 we know that, it’s just the easiest way to put it.
For sure.
I am a childfree guy from senegal. Not intending to bring kids into this horrible place called planet earth.
It doesn't make sense why poverty stricken people make babies. I'm not saying Senegal is poor
@@zimdollar3229 senegal is indeed a poor country.
That rebuttal is missing the point. A potential person is different from a non-existent person. Take this analogy from physics: Potential energy is not the same as the absence of energy. In the context of antinatalism, the potential person will either suffer or they will not. There is no continued non-existence without a choice, antinatalism only exists at a crossroads.
"We're you wronged in being created?" + "Are you glad to be alive?" equals "Were you the victim of a crime?" and "Can you forgive the perpetrator?" If the answer to the latter is yes, it doesn't mean it wasn't a crime - it just means they got away with it. 😊
I didn’t expect to cry when he said “i” was a light in the world... maybe I should be looking into more positive ways of thinking, for my own good...
Please do MORE discussions on antinatalism....it’s disturbingly fascinating! Great topic!
0:52
Let's be real, most people are non-contributing overconsumers just trying to squeeze some comfort out of life.
No consent = no deal
great video on a fascinating topic.
to me Benatar's argument sounds a lot like loss aversion fallacy. I agree with his point that lack of pleasure is not inherently bad, but it sounds like his theory has to go one further and argue that pleasure in any quantity is not actually good, or at least not good in the way that suffering is bad. Without taking the utilitarian position that x amount of pleasure cancels out x amount of suffering, I think you can argue that creating a person who will experience a lot of pleasure is adding good to the hypothetical empty room even if it doesn't outweigh or is even really comparable to the bad introduced by the person's suffering.
If we don't want to make it a utility function, we might say you have simultaneously done harm and good, and just as the good doesn't cancel out the harm, neither does the harm negate the good, if that makes any sense?
to go back to the old Shakespearean cliche, losing someone you loved is unequivocally bad, and is in no way diminished by having loved them, but that doesn't mean it would be better to stay at a net zero position by never having loved at all (sorry for getting a bit sappy there)
my personal utility function (based on experience and intuition, not actual philosophers or anything) values pleasure only when it comes without suffering at all, so that pleasure can never cancel suffering, but any amount of suffering always overrides pleasure. That seems right to me.
I think that may be technically two functions, where the pleasure function is only considered in cases where the suffering function is not involved.
@@a_cep why do you believe pleasure would only count when there is no suffering that comes with it
We've hit the point of no return in climate change. I don't want to willingly inflict children and my descendants with having to suffer through that nightmarish reality.
Well said.
"Climate change might destroy humanity, so we should prepare for it by destroying humanity."
We haven’t reached the point of no return yet, but given just how greedy the corporations are and just how corrupt the governments are, there isn’t really *anything* that anyone can do before it’s too late.
That’s why I spend my time on things that make me have fun and engage my thinky bits, because doing anything else would make me fall down the dark pit of depression... again...
@@pavelthefabulous5675 Fuck off, breeder.
@@SumDumGai5 F**k off yourself, nihilist.
The way you described "the asymmetry between pleasure and pain" seemed like we assumed the axiom "the absence of pain is good while the absence of pleasure is not bad" then proceeded to confirm it by offer examples, each of which tacitly assumed the axioms in the first place.
Hey! A name for the thing i am. Nice.
#stupidnatalists
Quê?
I agree with Benetar 110%
Me too.
Aww, I was so dissapointed when I realized that the video was ending. I really think this topic lends itself to further analysis. I'm hoping for a part two! Or at the least, an extended discussion of the consequences of such a moral belief in the comment responses video.
I’d want too and need too see a extended version of this video or another part
The life of an individual is a constant struggle,
and not merely a metaphorical one against want or boredom,
but also an actual struggle against other people.
He discovers adversaries everywhere,
lives in continual conflict and dies with sword in hand.
To sum up, pleasure is basically the absense of pain and pain is moreso the default state, as we are always having to pursue pleasure. If you simply do not exist, you avoid this probem entirely as you have the absence of either. When you are alive, you can only be in the state of one or the other at any one time. If you are not having pleasure, you are in pain. If you are not happy, you are sad. If you are not entertained, you are bored. There is no simplicity of just not being in pleasure or pain, as we have with death. And of course, life brings far more pain than it does pleasure, any grown person knows that. Honestly, as a theory antinatalism is flawless. In practice? We will never override the human urge to procreate. Most people cannot accept this philosophy. Sad.
Pleasure and pain are not exactly opposite, they can often intertwine with each other. We experience melancholy and bittersweet. We experience our strongest feelings of connections often through our suffering. Life is complex. Feelings are much more complex than just pleasure or pain. And again if this were so flawless people would line up for a painless death. But they don't. People are terrified of death. And what that fear 99% of the time boils down to is a fear of nonexistence. Which ironically is exactly the state you would be in if you had never been born.
Yeah, the first thing I thought of when I first encountered Benatar's argument was "um, isn't that like trying to compare a number to NULL?" The concept of potential people really is a dodge, whether it's Benetar, Bostrom, or even Rawls if you squint.
I don't see how it's a dodge.
It's preventing harm. Simple as that.
The answer is obviously "yes". What did you discuss in the remaining six minutes and nineteen seconds?
This whole "potential exister" point is irrelevant to the point that avoiding FUTURE suffering is important regardless if there is no one to suffer prior or who cares about it prior (the reason we are concerned about things such as the environment 500 years from now when no-one that currently exists will be around), where-as creating future pleasure is not a benefit if there is no one around that wants, needs, or desires it. This is because one is a preventative measure, which is about preventing a future negative state, and the other is a creative measure, about creating a future positive state. The prevention of a value-er is still important even if the creation of a value-er is not. If you want to play the "it's only potential existence" game you have to do so for all far future ethical considerations (and brush them to the side as easily).
In regards to value-asymmetry from a state where there is no value-er...this is why it would be an ethical duty not to create clones that will suffer horribly for a week and die a terrible death, where-as it would NOT be an ethical duty to create clones that will be in bliss for a week and die happily and painlessly after the week.
In regards to comparisons, if we wanted to, we actually CAN compare the state in which matter and energy form a creature who will suffer, and the same matter and energy not forming a creature who will suffer. We don't have to go into ideas about "nothingness" if we are to be entirely technical (which asserting ideas about "nothingness" being compared to "somethingness" is a game that is played).
Well-written, I just wanted to say!!!
THANK "GOD" I have no children!
I love you
This god I keep hearing about seems to be a psychopath. No being with any ounce of empathy would create this hellish existence called life.
Yes. Yes, it is. In no way is condemning someone to this existence is a good thing.
Right. What about the many, many people who consider life to be a good thing ?
I, myself, am not very happy right now. I'm lonely, sad and frustrated by pretty much all that surrounds me.
Yet I'm glad to be alive, because every now and then I stumble upon something that brings such pleasure to me, I think to myself "Im glad to be alive".
My reasoning is pretty much the opposite of Benatar's reasoning. He says (from what I understood) that if there is pain, no matter how small, then all the pleasure is not worth living, a life is only as good as it's worst moments.
I, on the other hand, believe that if there is a sufficient amount of pleasure to be had, to cope with all the pain inherent to life, then yes, life is worth living, and I'm glad to be alive.
Finally, I think it was Epicurus who, when confronted about the pains of life and the pointlessness of having been created, as would say those who claim that life is not worth living and that all would be better off never being born in the first place, replied: "If non existence is a better state to be in than existence, why do these people keep on living ?"
Bertrand Lecerf pain is good, it lets you know your still alive
I'd rather you didn't insinuate those who enjoy life are burdened with a mental disorder such as Stockholm syndrome. People have a variety of reasons for wanting to stay alive, not the least of which is sheer genetic bias. You contain genetic information that has survived since the beginning of humanity, albeit with a few mutations and modifications, and it didn't get there by accident. Those billions of humans before you had some reason to stay alive, at least long enough to have children. Obviously I can't predict what would happen given the situation, but if I were forced to bet I'd say you'd be a lot less ready to 'off yourself' should the opportunity actually arise. Maybe I'm wrong, but since you contain functioning human DNA, statistically I should be correct.
xzonia1 I wasn't taking offence. It's your opinion, if that's actually how you feel, I can't argue with you. Just furthering the discussion, I hope I didn't come across as offended anyway.
You had said "Right. What about the many, many people who consider life to be a good thing?"
And the Stockholm Syndrome comment was my answer to that point.
Glad to know you weren't offended! I was just trying to answer your points. Is there a justification to having children knowing that they won't all be glad to be alive? Is it right to have kids when you've done no harm to refrain, but might do great harm by choosing to do so?
And yes, suicide isn't an easy thing to do, and most people aren't ready to do it... but many people do it every year, so you really can't assume one wouldn't do it if the opportunity arises.
This is such a fascinating branch of philosophy.
I know this is an old video, but it still made me think. What stands out to me about this view of anti-natalism is not the "non-existence" aspect but rather the idea that avoiding pain is the only thing that matters. Different philosophies have a similar idea that avoiding harm is necessary but improving the status quo is not. And I think that is an inherently flawed moral system. If the goal is to have a morally good society (which I know isn't necessarily the goal, but I think it should be, notwithstanding the question of how you define "morally good"), then you have to actively work to improve it.
If you want to avoid suffering, wipe out the human race. 8 billion deaths now prevents trillions of deaths (and disease, and emotional pain, and so on) for the rest of time. But if you want a human race that is thriving, you need to actually work for it. We need to work to understand each other and help each other.
As for how that applies to the question of babies, I think the act of creation is inherently neutral because you simply can't compare existence vs non-existence. But if you do have a baby (whether through procreation or adoption), you are morally obligated to do what you can so that this new human's life has more good than bad in it. If you know ahead of time that you're not able or willing to provide that for them, that's where the value judgement comes in for whether or not it's okay to have a child.
Also by this same logic, adoption is almost universally better than procreation, because you are improving that child's life simply by being a willing parent--in essence, you start with a positive "moral score" instead of at 0.
Birth, school, work, debt, death. Fuck this bullshit.
Time to qualify for cutting hair: 6 months
Time to qualify for having a child: 6 minutes
The solution: "How to not raise a miserable bastard 101" mandatory in highschool ... ?
@Boron liieb it's more a general minimum for everyone, and let's be honest, as that, it is generous.
@Boron liieb What the absolute shit are you on about? Dude, if anything, you are the one screaming 'self esteem issues" responding to a weeks old joke to brag about your manhood.
@Boron liieb That was meant to be referencing terrible parents.. I guess at the very least, I can admit my joke wasn't very clear, as it only got 5 upvotes lol
Still the last time the state tried to regulate parenthood, nothing good came out of that: Eugenics and forced sterilizations.
Just saying that the state should intervene in personal matters, even if it's for a theoretical good because it doesn't knows what's good better than we do.
Holy fuck I've thought this for a long time I didn't know it had been argued by a philosopher
No matter how "good" all lives inevitably end up with deterioration of the body and mind - and one farewell to another as everyone we know drop off dead and sick around us.
I've toyed with these ideas for a while. Didn't think it was my original idea back then, but the sources given are enough guide further research. Good work, nicely done.
It would be no use being happy if you didn't exist.
However, you shouldn't feel any pain whether you exist or not. You won't feel pain without existing. Therefore, it's clear that you shouldn't have children.
What I'm baffled by is that people still insist on breeding their own children when there are so many orphans that should be adopted.
people breed for very selfish reasons and only for those reasons.
Nobody brings a child into the world FOR the child.
Almost always the reason for having a baby is to fulfill their own needs.
I want a meaning in life. I want to be loved. I want to be like everyone else.
I want to make my parents happy. I want that extra welfare check. Oops I don't know what happened. I have nothing else to do in this world. This is selfish.
Thank you for this great video!!! literally gave me a clear explanation of what i've been confusing myself with for such a long time!
While I have a personal problem with having children while there are thousands and thousands of already existing children in need of loving homes, I dont think we can really say that having children is necessarily morally wrong (though it might be in certain contexts) because there is no way of qualitatively comparing existence with nonexistence.
I also don't think suffering is always bad. Playing sports, martial arts, exercising and giving birth are all part of suffering that people tend to be proud of going through once they look back. I do martial arts and I suffer every time I roll or spar. Humans are meant to face challenges in life. We'd be bored and try to find reasons to complain if we had no real hardships to face. People who have everything handed to them and spoon fed are miserable. You're weak if you don't suffer.
@@vprez4925 Yeah, to me antinatalism boils down to some kind of pathological perfectionism. It doesn't really compare existence to nonexistence in the end, it compares existence as it is to some imagined perfect existence without any pain and then since that ideal can never be achieved, the conclusion is drawn that it's better to not have anything at all. I'd rather live an imperfect life than be a perfect corpse.
@@g.boychev9355 but we know there is the perfect state because we know non existence is a thing that is real. So bennetars point still stands.
Imposing life is the ultimate crime 😢
I have disabilities and this hits very different as it adds a whole different layer of complexity.
I'm trying to find the video you referenced at the end about father's rights and child support and I can't find it on your channel. What is the title, am I missing it?
finally, I was waiting for this subject!
sentience is a curse
This comment section is needlessly edgy. Don't have them for frivolous reasons, have them when you're ready for the responsibility and if that's too hard for you or you don't believe in it, don't.
we are talking about another human being here, not about new furniture or a new fridge. people just talk about having children like getting a new pair a shoes. by they way, there are no, no frivoulus reasons to force someone to come here. there fixed!
@@Billy-rr7re I'm not sure what you're implying by saying there are no frivolous reasons for having kids straight after admitting that people treat them like furniture. Also thanks? Your tone sounds like you made a point but you've just restated one I made.
@@xethified my bad, fixed, or if you prefer, there are only frivolous reasons to force someone to come here.
@@Billy-rr7re You're entitled to your nihilism. I'm sure if my outlook on life was this depressing, I'd be resentful of consciousness too.
@Josip Čuljak Sure. Can I also say that snowflake is such a tired cliche at this stage that it somewhat undermines your point. I'm happy to rebutt arguments if I disagree with them but I'm not tarring all who oppose me with the same banal brush.
This is amazing.
I wanted to ask you to make this video.
I haven't watched it yet, but I surely will and I am so excited that you made it.
Also a bit sorry I couldn't give you the idea XD
could you do a video on coping/ arguments against nihilism,
It could be you already have such video's but I havent been able to find them :P