Darkover
Archangel
- Jul 29, 2021
- 5,172
A fundamental ethical principle is that actions affecting others should ideally require their consent—especially when those actions impose risks and burdens. However, a person cannot consent to being born, which means they are forced into existence without their say in the matter. If we applied this standard elsewhere, forcing someone into a situation with potential suffering against their will would often be considered a crime (e.g., kidnapping, forced labor).
Every living being will experience suffering, ranging from minor discomforts to extreme agony. No matter how privileged a life may be, there are still illnesses, loss, aging, and death. For many, life includes unbearable suffering (e.g., chronic illness, depression, war, poverty). Even if someone is born into ideal conditions, they can still face unexpected misfortunes—genetic diseases, accidents, or abuse. Creating life ensures exposure to these risks.
Philosopher David Benatar argues that suffering is always bad, whereas the absence of pleasure is not bad if there is no one to be deprived of it. In other words:
If someone is born, they will suffer (which is bad).
If someone is not born, they do not suffer (which is good).
If someone is born, they may experience pleasure (which is good).
If someone is not born, they do not experience pleasure, but this is not bad because there is no one missing out.
Even if most people manage to tolerate life, some experience levels of suffering so extreme that they would prefer never to have been born. Consider those who are:
Born into extreme poverty or warzones.
Subjected to severe abuse or neglect.
Afflicted by painful, incurable diseases.
Mentally ill to the point of being suicidal for years.
If there is even a small chance of condemning someone to a torturous existence, then creating life is playing a dangerous game with another being's well-being.
There is no need to create new life. No unborn being is suffering from the absence of life. Any supposed "benefit" of existence is only a justification from the perspective of those who already exist. If no new lives are created, no harm is done.
Society criminalizes actions that cause significant harm to others. If bringing someone into existence inherently causes harm (since all life experiences suffering and eventually dies), then, under the same logic, it should be viewed as an unethical and potentially criminal act.
"But life also has happiness."
Happiness is not guaranteed, while suffering is. There are many who suffer far more than they enjoy life. Even those with good lives still experience grief, illness, and eventually death.
"Most people do not regret being born."
Many do, and those who don't may simply have been conditioned to accept life. Furthermore, not regretting something doesn't mean it was ethical. Many people adjust to bad situations, but that doesn't justify putting them there.
"If no one had children, humanity would go extinct."
That would prevent all future suffering. Extinction is only seen as "bad" from the perspective of the living, not from a neutral standpoint.
If we base laws on preventing unnecessary harm and respecting consent, then bringing a sentient being into existence—knowing they will suffer and die—could reasonably be considered a crime. Society already criminalizes actions that cause suffering to unwilling participants, and birth is arguably the ultimate example of this.
Every living being will experience suffering, ranging from minor discomforts to extreme agony. No matter how privileged a life may be, there are still illnesses, loss, aging, and death. For many, life includes unbearable suffering (e.g., chronic illness, depression, war, poverty). Even if someone is born into ideal conditions, they can still face unexpected misfortunes—genetic diseases, accidents, or abuse. Creating life ensures exposure to these risks.
Philosopher David Benatar argues that suffering is always bad, whereas the absence of pleasure is not bad if there is no one to be deprived of it. In other words:
If someone is born, they will suffer (which is bad).
If someone is not born, they do not suffer (which is good).
If someone is born, they may experience pleasure (which is good).
If someone is not born, they do not experience pleasure, but this is not bad because there is no one missing out.
Even if most people manage to tolerate life, some experience levels of suffering so extreme that they would prefer never to have been born. Consider those who are:
Born into extreme poverty or warzones.
Subjected to severe abuse or neglect.
Afflicted by painful, incurable diseases.
Mentally ill to the point of being suicidal for years.
If there is even a small chance of condemning someone to a torturous existence, then creating life is playing a dangerous game with another being's well-being.
There is no need to create new life. No unborn being is suffering from the absence of life. Any supposed "benefit" of existence is only a justification from the perspective of those who already exist. If no new lives are created, no harm is done.
Society criminalizes actions that cause significant harm to others. If bringing someone into existence inherently causes harm (since all life experiences suffering and eventually dies), then, under the same logic, it should be viewed as an unethical and potentially criminal act.
"But life also has happiness."
Happiness is not guaranteed, while suffering is. There are many who suffer far more than they enjoy life. Even those with good lives still experience grief, illness, and eventually death.
"Most people do not regret being born."
Many do, and those who don't may simply have been conditioned to accept life. Furthermore, not regretting something doesn't mean it was ethical. Many people adjust to bad situations, but that doesn't justify putting them there.
"If no one had children, humanity would go extinct."
That would prevent all future suffering. Extinction is only seen as "bad" from the perspective of the living, not from a neutral standpoint.
If we base laws on preventing unnecessary harm and respecting consent, then bringing a sentient being into existence—knowing they will suffer and die—could reasonably be considered a crime. Society already criminalizes actions that cause suffering to unwilling participants, and birth is arguably the ultimate example of this.
