Antinatalism Rule

BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone – 419 points –
308

You are viewing a single comment

I'm not a fan of utalitarianism myelf, so this might be wrong; this sounds like utalitarianism - as the action you did cause other suffering.

then in your moral philosophy, are all actions that cause suffering (and joy, and all other feelings a human can experience) morally wrong?

Is then not dating, f.ex Morally wrong?

Or is it the impossibility of consent? Yes, a child is unable to consent to being born. Just as we are all unable to consent to the world being created, or nature's whims. I cannot consent to a state on the other side of the world making policies, but I can still react and do things about it.

Is it morally wrong to let animals have children?

If one animal species is harming an ecosystem then I don't see how it's morally wrong to limit their reproduction.

Usually, a better way to help an ecosystem balance itself is to reintroduce predators or similarly.

the deer population in yellowstone was destroying the soil, this was solved by reintroducing wolves.

there's a big difference between this, and f.ex castrating a lot of the deer, or going on a shooting spree.

It also goes with the assumption that the ecosystem is either outside the moral spectrum, or morally good.

There's also antinatalism from a deontological perspective.

But, from the negative utilitarianists I've known and seen, I've found an intense debate about the animal reproduction question. Some say antinatalism should include non-human animals and any other sentient being; some say it's a human-only matter. I do not have an opinion.