ANTI-NATALISM:

THE BENTLEY WOOD ARGUMENT:

1. Given that in all circumstance...

Response: NO:-
 One may say that it is impossible to know what sort of life the child will live due to the
unpredictable nature of life, so it would therefore be morally wrong to procreate despite the
apparent risks involved.


YES:-
 Social pressure; cultural relativism means that having children is a must in certain parts of the
world- therefore certain ideologies like anti-natalism cannot be applied to such situations.
 Theological reasons apply; the Bible and ‘be fruitful and multiply'. Religious believers may
want to have children, despite the risks, for the sake of heeding religious commands.
 An irresistible biological urge, according to some scientists + the pleasure and joy children
bring

2. If your answer to the first question was yes, consider this question..

Response: YES:-
 Unethical to deliberately put children in harm’s way
 Children living in such conditions may have preferred to have not been born-
preference utilitarianism aspect to take into account; may not to be morally right if
the children’ preference isn’t taken into account
 Lack of consent involving being born- unethical?
However, a lack of consent isn’t always bad.

NO:
 Because if this were the case, then the human population may begin to dwindle and therefore,
it is only right to keep the human race afloat + question 3: the economy may be affected by
the lack of people coming to work
 These harsh conditions mean that having children is the only way to survive for some people,
as the children can then work and provide for the parents as they grow old
 True anti-natalists: being given life is always wrong- this would lead to extinction, but
according to Benatar, this is what extreme anti-natalists prefer- total extinction of humankind.
Axiological asymmetrical argument-
‘If a being exists, suffering is bad and pleasure is good. However, if a being does not exist,
missing out on pleasure isn’t bad, however missing out on suffering is good.
In other words, life is suffering. Suffering is bad. Therefore, it’s better to not be born, so that
we never experience suffering.’
 However, humanity has evolved this much and in order to survive, procreation is necessary
and therefore, no procreation will lead to extinction and will technically be against what
 biology has commanded- some may say having children is part of nature itself, humans who
try to hinder this for the sake of nature, etc etc. are meddling with what they’re trying to
protect.
 Suffering is part of this world and we must simply accept it
 Anti-natalists attempting to stop others from having babies via the use of force are
undermining people’s autonomy to think for themselves and make decisions
 Kant: ‘do not have children’ is a contradiction of logic but not a contradiction of will-
therefore, it is an imperfect duty and disputes extreme anti-natalism as it isn’t immoral in
itself but immoral only when the situation arises
 Bentham’s utilitarianism:
The suffering of children and adults worldwide, especially those living in harsh conditions,
certainly outweighs the pleasure gained by the parents when they initially brought their
children into the world
 Pro-mortalism: best way to end suffering is to end our own lives; dying out of self love-
however, Kantian ethics- suicide due to self live is inconceivable and therefore we have a
perfect duty not to do it. Hence, killing one’s own self as a position doesn’t stand + it is
against the law- moral duties must be done out of respect for the law.
 To tackle the birth rates:- procreation licensing: a state controlled method that involves
background screening, IQ testing, minimum income, and parenting classes- however, if this
were put into place, many issues would arise, including whether this is moral, to undermine
people’s autonomy; whether it is sutainable, in the long run; it may be classed as
discriminatory- only the rich are allowed to procreate + ableist- some people may have
disabilities that affect their IQ and others may be able to function, so it is not only ridding
them of their freedom, but it is also labelling something they have which is beyond their
sphere of control as negative- again, is discriminatory; some countries may not be able to
afford parenting classes for all the potential parents- the money could be used elsewhere
