Executive summary: This exploratory essay argues against anti-natalism by defending the moral and existential value of creating happy lives, claiming that both harms and benefits matter ethically and that procreation can be a generous, non-obligatory gift when the expected life is good overall.
Key points:
Anti-natalism’s moral asymmetry is challenged: The author critiques the anti-natalist view—especially as argued by David Benatar—that preventing harm always outweighs providing benefit, pointing out that this leads to counterintuitive conclusions, such as preferring a lifeless world over a mostly happy one.
Existential harms and benefits both matter: The essay introduces the concept of existential harm (creating a miserable life) and existential benefit (creating a happy life), arguing that rejecting the latter while accepting the former reflects an inconsistent moral stance.
Critique of hyper-cautious consent standards: The author compares the anti-natalist concern about lack of consent in procreation to paramedics saving an unconscious patient—suggesting that retrospective consent can be a reasonable moral gamble when the expected outcome is good.
Pathological risk-aversion underlies anti-natalism: Anti-natalist arguments are seen as driven by excessive loss, blame, and risk aversion, failing to appreciate that life can be morally and personally valuable despite its uncertainties.
Ethics should include doing good, not just avoiding harm: The author argues for a broader moral outlook that includes the positive creation of value, not merely harm-avoidance—a perspective that could shift both philosophical and everyday moral reasoning.
Procreation is good, but not obligatory: While creating happy lives is morally valuable, this does not imply an obligation to procreate; bodily autonomy and voluntary generosity remain paramount, just as with organ donation.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory essay argues against anti-natalism by defending the moral and existential value of creating happy lives, claiming that both harms and benefits matter ethically and that procreation can be a generous, non-obligatory gift when the expected life is good overall.
Key points:
Anti-natalism’s moral asymmetry is challenged: The author critiques the anti-natalist view—especially as argued by David Benatar—that preventing harm always outweighs providing benefit, pointing out that this leads to counterintuitive conclusions, such as preferring a lifeless world over a mostly happy one.
Existential harms and benefits both matter: The essay introduces the concept of existential harm (creating a miserable life) and existential benefit (creating a happy life), arguing that rejecting the latter while accepting the former reflects an inconsistent moral stance.
Critique of hyper-cautious consent standards: The author compares the anti-natalist concern about lack of consent in procreation to paramedics saving an unconscious patient—suggesting that retrospective consent can be a reasonable moral gamble when the expected outcome is good.
Pathological risk-aversion underlies anti-natalism: Anti-natalist arguments are seen as driven by excessive loss, blame, and risk aversion, failing to appreciate that life can be morally and personally valuable despite its uncertainties.
Ethics should include doing good, not just avoiding harm: The author argues for a broader moral outlook that includes the positive creation of value, not merely harm-avoidance—a perspective that could shift both philosophical and everyday moral reasoning.
Procreation is good, but not obligatory: While creating happy lives is morally valuable, this does not imply an obligation to procreate; bodily autonomy and voluntary generosity remain paramount, just as with organ donation.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.