An argument for antinatalism

DavidShekelburg · 2018-04-02T04:27:39+00:00

I'm not going to go around telling everyone not to have kids because I don't want to be like the vegans. But I'm antinatalist for my own self. Why bring a kid into this world knowing they will just be a slave? Its stupid and selfish. And women, like my mom, will make the argument "But children are so much fun," which only reinforces my point. People who have children do NOT think about the child's future, only their own amusement. There is no future in this society, but women and simps will still have kids because they want a pet that can talk.

DangZagnut · 2018-04-02T04:17:48+00:00

Who cares? Why do I want to pay for another life form exactly?

As in, why should I care?

MGTOWtoday · 2018-04-02T04:23:34+00:00

I’ve thought much the same in deciding not to have children. Additionally, we all know that the only people who will ever die are already alive. Therefore, all parents are, strictly speaking, murderers.

R3ddit_Is_Trash · 2018-04-02T04:46:29+00:00

First, this has nothing to do with MGTOW.

Second, these are pretty standard anti natalism arguments, which are predicated on accepting certain things as truth without proving them as true.

If a person is not born, then they seem to be deprived of the possible happiness they may have experienced if they were born. However, the feeling of deprivation can only experienced by existing in the first place. Therefore, a non-existent person does not experience deprivation of happiness.

If a person is alive, then they desire to be happy. A non-existent person does not desire happiness. On the other hand, there is a possibility of being deprived of happiness and experiencing suffering if a person is alive.

This is a pretty standard Universal Anti Natalism argument, that there is some balance of net good or net bad in the world and imagining that humans experience net bad (you call it "deprivation of happiness").

First, it assumes that humans are net unhappy.

Second, it assumes that the valuable thing in life is happiness.

Third, it assumes that the "possibility of being deprived of happiness" is important, but that is predicated on the above two points that are not true but assumed to be true.

You don't have to look hard to see that this is standard anti natalist arguments, all of which have been argued better than you and have been rebutted better than I have done.

The last bit now goes into this:

So, the only ones losing out are those who are already alive and may experience happiness if another person is born. Existence does not benefit someone who is not alive.

Nothing benefits someone who is not alive. They're literally imaginary. You're still arguing about happiness and deprivation of happiness as if those are the only things that matter.

It seems to me that humans tend to actually value things that may be difficult and cause stress, but in the long run create achievement. The assumption that the good part of life is happiness and that "deprivation of happiness" makes life not worth living is just that - an assumption based on nothing.

Thus, birthing a child is only beneficial to those alive. A child is birthed not for the sake of the child itself but for the sake of those who exist. If one were to think selflessly only for the child, then they would not have a child.

Or they just disagree with the assumptions you made, which are for the most part nonsense. You're ascribing other people's motive on a universal level, something that makes you astoundingly wrong.

Title	An argument for antinatalism
Author	elsecrypt
Upvotes	16
Comments	27
Date	April 2, 2018 4:15 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/88wqbp/an_argument_for_antinatalism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/an-argument-for-antinatalism.574469 https://theredarchive.com/post/574469

Comments