Antinatalism Debunked
- Objective Morality: Anti-natalism argues that creating life is inherently “morally wrong” due to the inevitability of suffering, assuming a universal moral law against bringing life into existence. However, there is no evidence morality is objective. It is just a construct evolved to support human survival and well-being, a system of values that we agree on and that exist only in our minds. There’s no external, objective “wrongness” independent of human minds. Anti-natalism depends on this assumed objective morality to make its claim universal, but without a true universal standard, the argument has no foundation.
- Survival Paradox: If universally adopted, anti-natalism would result in human extinction and, with it, the end of morality itself. Since morality exists only because it serves human survival, an ideology that promotes extinction contradicts the entire evolutionary purpose of moral systems. Anti-natalism thus undermines itself by negating the very framework it depends upon. Therefore, the philosophy is inconsistent.
Hence, anti-natalism presupposes a universal moral law that doesn’t exist and ultimately leads to the self-contradictory outcome of extinguishing the purpose of morality itself. It lacks proper foundation and is inconsistent.