Looking at misanthropic antinatalism.

It is very true that you can’t have a family without breaking the Golden Rule.

Christian insistence on both Family Values and Love is contradictory. In general Christians have large families, invade someone’s country, feel guilty about it, and then destroy their own society.

Eastern Europeans are hypocrites. They fawn over Karol Wojtyla, but refuse to accept asylum seekers, although that Pope considered immigration control a crime against life, comparable to abortion.

The Prime Directive

Misanthropic antinatalism is the only area of antinatalism to which I haven’t yet devoted much space. After reading Debating Procreation and Benatar’s excellent exposition of it there, I was inspired to write this entry.

My intention here is not to repeat the main lines of evidence for misanthropic antinatalism (a task which has been already done at length by David Benatar in his books on antinatalism), but rather to try to frame the discussion in a somewhat different way.

Misanthropic antinatalism, in general, is the position that it is wrong to procreate because of the evils of human nature or mankind in general. Unlike philanthropic arguments (e.g. the Asymmetry, the risk argument, or the consent argument), which revolve around the imposition on the new person, misanthropic arguments revolve around the people, societies and institutions that already exist and how they make the world a bad place to bring new life…

View original post 2,420 more words

One thought on “Looking at misanthropic antinatalism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s