Is it morally wrong to have children? A Stoic response to the anti-natalism argument
Is pain really morally bad? Is pleasure really morally good?
You might have heard of anti-natalism, the notion that it is immoral to bring children into the world. You might have also dismissed it out of hand as yet another example of useless philosophical navel-gazing. But the anti-natalists have a sophisticated argument on their side, and simply labeling a position absurd is no counter-argument. Let’s take a look, and then construct an anti-anti-natalist response on the basis of Stoic principles.
An article by Joseph Earp, a strong advocate of anti-natalism, makes the case. Earp summarizes the argument put forth by one of the leading philosophers in the anti-natalism camp, the South African David Benatar. It goes like this (my version is a bit more elaborate than Earp’s because I bring to light some of his unstated premises and conclusions):
Premise 1: Pain is bad.
Premise 2: Pleasure is good.
Premise 3: An absence of pain is good.
Premise 4: An absence of pleasure is not bad for the person for whom this pleasure is not a deprivation.
