(April 3, 2015 at 12:00 pm)Faith No More Wrote: On the flip-side, if it is unethical to reproduce because of a possibility of a painful existence, wouldn't it be unethical not to reproduce because there is a possibility of happiness? It seems to me that a possibility of suffering doesn't factor into the equation, and questioning the ethics of reproduction itself is insufficient. Ethics only comes into play when we question how reproduction is used and under what circumstances.
Denying a being the possibility of happiness because of the possibility of suffering doesn't seem to stand up to reason.
Yes, this is the essence of it. The antinatalist is terrified by the negatives of life, and refuses therefore to see any of the positives. For them, even if a child were born a prince, raised to an enlightened kingdom, lived a hundred years in glory, and died surrounded by happy, healthy grandchildren, it wouldn't matter. His royal parents would be branded unethical because at some point in his life, the boy stubbed his toe on the leg of his throne, and it hurt.
