The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.

[Viva June]

Quote Originally Posted by Kramdar

I understand that this argument will not convince antinatalists, who will rebut me by saying that someone who hasn't been born does not and can not desire anything. But I would argue that if someone steals something of yours you never knew you had but could've one day found, it's still theft. And in this sense, I could make the argument that not having children is immoral because it is the theft of one's freedom to experience existence . It's a silly argument, I admit, but it uses the same pseudo-logic as arguing that having children is immoral because it causes them to suffer.

So the first of these arguments is meant as a serious counter to the antinatalist claim, and the second one is just a joke? That's confusing, since to me they seem to be the exact same argument, except that in the latter instance the absurdity is made more apparent by the shift in perspective.

[Kramdar]

Quote Originally Posted by Viva June

Quote Originally Posted by Kramdar I understand that this argument will not convince antinatalists, who will rebut me by saying that someone who hasn't been born does not and can not desire anything. But I would argue that if someone steals something of yours you never knew you had but could've one day found, it's still theft. And in this sense, I could make the argument that not having children is immoral because it is the theft of one's freedom to experience existence . It's a silly argument, I admit, but it uses the same pseudo-logic as arguing that having children is immoral because it causes them to suffer. So the first of these arguments is meant as a serious counter to the antinatalist claim, and the second one is just a joke? That's confusing, since to me they seem to be the exact same argument, except that in the latter instance the absurdity is made more apparent by the shift in perspective.

The second statement is not a corollary to the first. It was written to illustrate the kind of leap in logic that an antinatalist would use to label procreation "immoral".

To clarify, I would not want to have the chance to exist stolen from me. But this doesn't mean that I can then state that non-existence is immoral. (Cf. The argument that "I suffer much in my life, therefore procreation is immoral").

[Viva June]

Quote Originally Posted by Kramdar

The second statement is not a corollary to the first. It was written to illustrate the kind of leap in logic that an antinatalist would use to label procreation "immoral". To clarify, I would not want to have the chance to exist stolen from me. But this doesn't mean that I can then state that non-existence is immoral. (Cf. The argument that "I suffer much in my life, therefore procreation is immoral").

Forgive me if I sound snide, but I think you fail to consider the implications of your own argument. What is the antinatalist's claim? Simply that there can be no harm in not existing. In response to this you say that there is such a thing as harm caused by being denied something one might enjoy. In order for this to be a refutation of the antinatalist view, it must apply to those who do not (yet) exist. Thus there is one harm that can be experienced even in non-existence: the harm of being refused entry into existence. From this it follows that refusing to bring people into existence is harmful, or as you put it, "not having children is immoral because it is the theft of one's freedom to experience existence". Hence my belief that your two statements amount to the same thing.

The basic problem, as I see it, is that language encourages the slip from non-existent to existent people. Confuse the two just once, and suddenly the universe will be crawling with unborn children who wail and gnash their teeth, and of course they too deserve to experience the taste of cold cherries on a hot summer day, surely there is no harm in that, quite the opposite in fact, etc. The thing to keep in mind is that no harm can come to "those" who do not exist, not even a kind of harm which "they" never experience.

[Kramdar]

Quote Originally Posted by Viva June

Quote Originally Posted by Kramdar The second statement is not a corollary to the first. It was written to illustrate the kind of leap in logic that an antinatalist would use to label procreation "immoral". To clarify, I would not want to have the chance to exist stolen from me. But this doesn't mean that I can then state that non-existence is immoral. (Cf. The argument that "I suffer much in my life, therefore procreation is immoral"). Forgive me if I sound snide, but I think you fail to consider the implications of your own argument. What is the antinatalist's claim? Simply that there can be no harm in not existing. In response to this you say that there is such a thing as harm caused by being denied something one might enjoy. In order for this to be a refutation of the antinatalist view, it must apply to those who do not (yet) exist. Thus there is one harm that can be experienced even in non-existence: the harm of being refused entry into existence. From this it follows that refusing to bring people into existence is harmful, or as you put it, "not having children is immoral because it is the theft of one's freedom to experience existence". Hence my belief that your two statements amount to the same thing. The basic problem, as I see it, is that language encourages the slip from non-existent to existent people. Confuse the two just once, and suddenly the universe will be crawling with unborn children who wail and gnash their teeth, and of course they too deserve to experience the taste of cold cherries on a hot summer day, surely there is no harm in that, quite the opposite in fact, etc. The thing to keep in mind is that no harm can come to "those" who do not exist, not even a kind of harm which "they" never experience.

Your point is the exact same one I used to make, once.
But again, you're assuming that harm is the be all and end all of existence. What about pleasure? What about experience?
Sure, I get that denying these things to something that doesn't exist may seem inconsequential, but what if that potential person would have otherwise gone on to become an actual person who wanted the chance to live?

[Kramdar]

Let me get something straight.
I think procreation is neither moral nor immoral.

I do however think that deciding for others whether procreation is moral or immoral is immoral.


I did not intend to imply that procreation is moral, or that antinatalism is immoral, only that morality or immorality can be shoehorned into anything, and that there is no *objective* morality or Truth to antinatalism, as Benatar suggests there is.


So Jeff, wipe your eyes, there's really no need for the crocodile tears.