Café Philo Bristol and Bath

Note: Café Philo is a way of meeting interesting, inquiring people who enjoy talking about life's big issues and conundrums in a convivial atmosphere, rather than a heavy-duty philosophy seminar. Read more about our approach here.

Antinatalism is the view that having children may be morally wrong, or at least something we should treat with real caution. The basic idea is simple: since every life involves some pain, loss, illness, disappointment, and eventually death, some philosophers argue that it is better not to create a new life at all than to expose someone to all of that without their consent.

The best-known version of the argument (David Benatar’s “asymmetry argument”) says that avoiding procreation avoids harm without depriving anyone of pleasure, whereas creating a child inevitably leads to both harm as well as good. In other words, if a child is never born, there is no one left wishing they had been born, but there is also no one suffering. Critics counter that this makes non-existence look “better” in a way that is too abstract, and that many lives are clearly worth living because they contain love, joy, achievement, and meaning.

Another major theme is (the lack of) consent. We cannot ask a future child whether they want to be born, so procreation is a decision made entirely by other people on their behalf. Antinatalists think that is a serious problem, especially because the child is being brought into a world full of risks and suffering for reasons that mostly come from the wishes of adults, not the child’s own interests.

Some versions of the argument are also tied to the state of the world. If we are already facing climate pressure, war, inequality, and widespread suffering, then choosing to create more people can seem especially hard to defend. A more moderate view says that this does not make all childbearing wrong, but it does mean the decision deserves much more moral seriousness than it usually gets.

A common response is that antinatalism goes too far. Even if life is sometimes painful, it can also be deeply worthwhile, and many people would choose to live again if given the chance. So the debate often turns on a big question: is the suffering built into life enough to make birth itself morally suspect, or do the goods of life outweigh that concern?

## Questions to ponder

1. Is it ever better for someone not to exist than to have been born?
2. Does the fact that a future child cannot consent make procreation morally troubling?
3. Are the harms of life enough to outweigh the good parts?
4. Do today’s environmental and social problems make the antinatalist case stronger?
5. Is antinatalism a useful ethical warning, or does it go too far? If so, where would you draw the line?

## Resources

1. Should I have children? Here’s what the philosophers say The Conversation
2. Antinatalism: David Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument for Why it’s Wrong to Have Children Philosophy Break
3. I wish I’d never been born: the rise of the anti-natalists The Guardian
4. Antinatalism Wikipedia
5. Anti-Natalism: Interview with David Benatar Philosophy Overdose (video 14 min)