Many antinatalists who are unaffiliated with EA have similar beliefs. (eg, David Benatar, although I’m not sure whether he’s even a consequentialist at all.)
Benatar is a nonconsequentialist. At least, the antinatalist argument he gives is nonconsequentialist—grounded in rules of consent.
Not sure why that matters though. It just underscores a long tradition of nonconsequentialists who have ideas which are similar to negative utilitarianism. Austen’s restriction of the question to NU just excludes obviously relevant examples such as VHEMT.
Many antinatalists who are unaffiliated with EA have similar beliefs. (eg, David Benatar, although I’m not sure whether he’s even a consequentialist at all.)
Benatar is a nonconsequentialist. At least, the antinatalist argument he gives is nonconsequentialist—grounded in rules of consent.
Not sure why that matters though. It just underscores a long tradition of nonconsequentialists who have ideas which are similar to negative utilitarianism. Austen’s restriction of the question to NU just excludes obviously relevant examples such as VHEMT.