Saturday, October 27, 2012

The harm of risks

In discussions on antinatalism, the following exchange of dialogue sometimes occurs:

Pronatalist: "Most people have a favourable view of their own lives. While some may have different views, the majority are still glad to have come into existence. On balance, procreation is thus acceptable."

Antinatalist: "Yes, but whenever one procreates, the risk that the created person suffers greatly in life and wishes they were never born is a risk whose consequences are born by another individual. While people are free to take risks with their own lives, creating another person is rolling the dice with someone else's life. The seriousness of the potential harms to those who come into existence makes that risk an unacceptable imposition."

There's nothing particularly wrong with this line of reasoning but there may be a subtle reason why it's unlikely to be successful (apart from the ordinary reasons). The counterargument engages with the idea that there's risk involved in procreation. This is true, of course, but the problem is that most people don't think in terms of probabilities. People typically don't think there's a realistic chance that bad things will happen to them - until those bad things actually happen to them.

It seems rather that the following is more appropriate:

Antinatalist: "Because of the widespread adoption of pronatalist ideals, many people will inevitably be created who hate their lives and wish they had never come into being, perhaps even wish to kill themselves. In some sense, the happiness of some is supported by the suffering of others. To justify procreation then is to justify the institution of inflicting suffering on some so that happiness may be experienced by other people in other places."

The above response is essentially equivalent to the former but it highlights the sheer sickness of the whole culture of procreation. It bypasses the matter of risk entirely by invoking considerations of actual harms and leaving abstractness aside. But who knows? Perhaps this counterargument will be equally unpersuasive. After all, it's easy to justify suffering when that suffering is not happening to you.

7 comments:

  1. Well yes, basically when people have babies they don't think rationally about any of it. I once asked my mom why did she give birth to me at all if she knew that I would be coming into this sick world where I will inevitably suffer and die and have a lot of shit I didn't ask for imposed on me, from existential conditions to social conditions.

    After my long-winded question, all I got for an answer was, to paraphrase: "we wanted someone cute to take care of us when we're old" and other similar bullshit.

    None of these things, including the rational realization that a non-being doesn't suffer and does't need pleasure crossed their minds.

    I think that's about how most people bring kids into existence. They just HAVE them. There is no rational thinking behind it at all, other than perhaps when parents think if they could support the kid (so he wouldn't die basically) until this or that age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true, but the point of this post wasn't to determine whether humans are rational decision makers, but rather to determine how different arguments are likely to be perceived by others. Even if humans are irrational in general, it doesn't mean they can't be made to see reason in all cases. One of my aims is to see under which circumstances people can be persuaded by argumentation.

      Delete
    2. While the point might have been to deconstruct arguments, I don't really believe irrational people can be made to see reason at all, unless that reason is housed within their habitual framework of irrationality.

      The arguments I used when arguing with my mother were 100% rational and yet not only did they not register on her radar, but she completely ignored them in favor of her optimistic bias.

      You mentioned probabilities, but of course these are not taken into consideration because that requires too much thinking (and of the rational variety too) and that's simply not what people do.

      When two people decide to have sex and bring another being here they don't think of the probabilities of that being suffering. All they think about is "its time for us to have a kid" and the only probability that enters their mind is "50/50 of it being a boy or a girl".

      For irrational decision makers, arguments that contain rationality will be dismissed whereas arguments that contain a mix of rationality and irrationality will be considered on the grounds of the latter.

      Sad but true reality

      Delete
    3. >You mentioned probabilities, but of course these are not taken into consideration because that requires too much thinking (and of the rational variety too) and that's simply not what people do.

      That was my point exactly. The question remains as to how the matter should be approached. Irrational people might not see reason, but there are still edge cases of those who might be convinced if only one argues in an appropriate way.

      Delete
    4. The matter should be approached in a way that would hint at a possible harm being done for breeders. So, I would add to your argument:

      "Due to the aforementioned reasons, I would suggest for you to think hard and carefully about bringing another person here as that person might not only come despise everything (including yourself) and wish he was never born, but as some cases indicate, he might actually sue you for gross negligence and premeditated murder (because you didn't think rationally about the kind of the world you are bringing him into but yet you knew he was going to inevitably suffer and die) and there are cases out there of a successful injunction of that sort going into court. This begs the question: is it really worth the infinite harm you would inflict on a potential being who could grow to reject you and the world, wish to kill himself and will take the necessary steps to sue you in court just for the sake of realizing your selfish desires?. Of course its not worth it!"

      Delete
    5. That's a rephasing of the initial counterargument. Once again, the subtle point I was making in my post was that arguing on the grounds that procreating might cause harm could very well be less effective than arguing on the grounds of actual harms. Also, the language used in your response is very divisive. Alienating people is never a successful debating strategy.

      Delete
    6. Alright, I'll rephrase it:

      "Antinatalist: "Because of the widespread adoption of pronatalist ideals, many people will inevitably be created who hate their lives and wish they had never come into being, perhaps even wish to kill themselves due to the imposed conditions of existence in a state they never asked for in a society they would very likely come to despise. In all cases, the imposition of birth is the perpetuation of the happiness of some through the suffering of most. To justify procreation then is to justify the institution of inflicting suffering within imposed conditions and within a framework of a meaningless and purposeless existence driven by artificial needs/desires that never existed until the person was born."

      Delete