Anti-Natalism

by Ken Coates

  Anti-Natalism: Rejectionist Philosophy from Buddhism to Benatar

  Ken Coates, Ph.D.

  First Edition Design Publishing, Inc.

  Anti-Natalism:

  Rejectionist Philosophy from Buddhism to Benatar

  Ken Coates

  Anti-Natalism:

  Rejectionist Philosophy from Buddhism to Benatar

  Copyright ©2014 Ken Coates

  ISBN 978-1622-875-70-2 EBOOK

  March 2014

  Published and Distributed by

  First Edition Design Publishing, Inc.

  P.O. Box 20217, Sarasota, FL 34276-3217

  www.firsteditiondesignpublishing.com

  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this book publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means ─ electronic, mechanical, photo-copy, recording, or any other ─ except brief quotation in reviews, without the prior permission of the author or publisher.

  Professor David Benatar's example and encouragement have been important in writing this book. He also read and commented on parts of it. My grateful thanks to him. I, however, remain solely responsible for its contents.

  Table of Contents

  Preface

  Introduction

  Chapter 1: Religious Perspectives

  Hinduism and Moksha

  Buddhism and Nirvana

  Chapter 2: Philosophical Perspectives :19th Century

  Arthur Schopenhauer: Suffering and Willlessness

  Eduard von Hartmann: Reason over Will

  Chapter 3: Philosophical Perspectives: 20th century and Beyond

  Peter Wessel Zapffe: Against Procreation

  David Benatar: Philosophy of Anti-Natalism

  Chapter 4: Literary Perspectives

  Samuel Beckett: Literature of Rejection

  Jean-Paul Sartre: Contingency and Existence (Nausea)

  Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions

  Rejectionism: From Philosophy to Practice

  Chapter 6: FAQs about Rejectionism

  References

  Preface

  The last few decades seem to have begun what has been called ‘the childless revolution’. In economically developed countries more and more people are choosing not to have children. The causes of this ‘revolution’ are many. One of these is the belief that to create a new life is to subject someone unnecessarily, and without their consent, to life’s many sufferings including death. This belief and its underlying philosophy is known as anti-natalism. There has been a recent resurgence of this philosophy, with David Benatar’s book Better Never To Have Been (2006) as a major catalyst. Anti-natalism can be seen as part of a larger philosophy, described here as Rejectionism, which finds existence – directly or indirectly, i.e. as procreation - deeply problematic and unacceptable.

  The book traces the development of this philosophy from its ancient religious roots in Hinduism (Moksha) and Buddhism (Nirvana) to its most modern articulation by the South African philosopher, David Benatar (2006). It examines the contribution to rejectionist thought by Arthur Schopenhauer and Eduard von Hartmann in the 19th century and Peter Wessel Zapffe, a little known Norwegian thinker, in the 20th century and most recently by Benatar. In part the unfolding of this philosophy over the centuries is the story of a transition from a religious to a secular – at first metaphysical, and later to a positivist approach in the form of anti-natalism. Zapffe and Benatar represent the anti-natal approach most clearly.

  The book also devotes a chapter to the literary expression of rejectionist philosophy in the works of Samuel Beckett and Jean Paul Sartre. In sum, far from being an esoteric doctrine rejectionism has been a major presence in human history straddling all three major cultural forms – religious, philosophical, and literary.

  The book argues that in developed countries where procreation is a choice, natalism or having children (Acceptance) is as much a philosophical stance in need of justification as its opposite, i.e. anti-natalism (Rejection). Secondly, the recent advance of anti-natal practice and the possibility of its further progress owe a great deal to three major developments: secularization, the liberalization of social attitudes, and technological advances (contraception). Anti-natal attitudes and practice should therefore be seen as a part of ‘progress’ in that these developments are widening our choice of lifestyles and attitudes to existence. Thirdly, and it follows, that anti-natalism needs to be taken seriously and considered as a legitimate worldview of a modern, secular civilization. Recent critique of anti-natalism has tended to treat it as a deviant or esoteric, if not a bizarre, viewpoint, restricted to a fringe or counter-culture. This is to misunderstand or misrepresent anti-natalism, and one of the objectives of this book is to situate current anti-natalist thought in its historical and philosophical perspective. Finally, it is argued that in order to further the development of anti-natalism it needs to be institutionalized as a form of rational ‘philosophy of life’ and more attention needs to be paid to the problems and prospect of putting this philosophy into practice.

  Introduction

  Human beings are the only creatures conscious of their own existence. Other living beings do not know that they exist. They cannot help going on living - reproducing and continuing the species - as programmed by nature. Humans alone have the capacity to interrogate their own existence. Since the dawn of consciousness human beings have found themselves confronting an existence they did not choose and which puts them through a great deal of pain and suffering – physical and mental - leading eventually to death.

  To make life with all its multifarious evils acceptable and meaningful humans have invented religion, a supernatural system of beliefs, which, among other things, seeks to justify and legitimize existence. Yet even religions have not found it easy to endorse life with all its evils – man-made and natural – and have sought ways of emancipation from it1. For example Hinduism and Buddhism, with their concepts of Moksha and Nirvana respectively (Koller 1982, 67; Snelling 1998, 54-5) point a way of transcending the phenomenal world with its recurring cycle of births and deaths. In addition, secular philosophies which consider existence to be a ‘bad’ rather than a ‘good’ have their own views about the evil of existence and the way out.

  Modern - mid-20th century onwards - secular philosophies see anti-natalism, i.e. refraining from procreation, as the way to liberation2. Besides expressing compassion for the unborn the decision not to reproduce is also a way of saying no to human existence. What these religious and secular philosophies have in common is the view that life in general and human life in particular is inherently flawed and that overcoming it would be a ‘good’ thing. While other creatures cannot escape their bondage to nature human beings can. They have the capacity to free themselves from the yoke of nature and to end their entrapment. And so they should. Broadly, the religious approach is based on freeing oneself from the will-to-live and the bondage to worldly desires whereas modern secular philosophies see anti-natalism as the key to emancipation.

  But surely the prescription of anti-natalism is counter-intuitive? Our instincts make us want to live and to reproduce. The sex drive is one of the strongest physical urges and, in the absence of contraception, results naturally in reproduction. True, as anti-natalists remind us, the coming of contraception has sundered the natural bond between coitus and conception. Celibacy is no longer necessary in order to prevent reproduction. The sex urge need not be denied to avoid conception. And as far as an ‘instinct’ to reproduce is concerned this remains a somewhat dubious proposition at least as far as humans are concerned.

  However, a more important objection against these philosophies is that they are unduly pessimistic and one-sided. They seem to turn a blind eye to all that is positive about life. For if there
is much pain and suffering there is also pleasure, joy, love, beauty, creativity and the like. In short, life comes as a package deal, with good and evil inextricably mixed together. How can one separate them? Why dwell on the negativities of existence alone forgetting the other side? These are weighty arguments and they have to be taken seriously. They raise important philosophical issues which will be considered later (Chapters 2, 3, 5 and 6). At this stage we would like to spell out the rationale for looking at these anti-existential viewpoints.

  Let us start by noting that from time immemorial literary and philosophical writings have given expression to the feeling of outrage at the evil of existence. Hamlet’s famous soliloquy is perhaps the best-known example. The most universally recognized symbol in Western civilization, the Cross carried by Christ, is a powerful message of life as a burden borne by man at the behest of God. In short, the viewpoint of life as evil has been a part of human consciousness. Anti-natalism too has its expression in literature such as Hamlet’s admonition to Ophelia: “Why woulds’t thou be a breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest, but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me …..What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven?...Go thy ways to a nunnery”.

  However despite a long history of literary allusions to the ills of existence, systematic philosophies, especially secular ones, which argue the case against existence are few and far between. They only date back to the 19th century, with Schopenhauer and to a lesser extent Eduard von Hartmann as the outstanding figures. And although Schopenhauer‘s thought includes a strong expression of anti-natalism - both as compassion to the unborn and as refusal to prolong the misery of existence - a philosophical treatise arguing the case for anti-natalism has appeared for the first time only recently, just a few years ago (Benatar 2006). In short, anti-existential philosophy and more especially the philosophy of anti-natalism constitutes a relatively recent and peripheral body of thought. It deserves to be known and discussed more widely. However what is common to the religious and secular philosophies presented in this book is their rejection of existence and the search for a way out. We therefore feel justified in using the term ‘rejectionism’ to indicate the genre of these philosophies and the chief characteristic of their world view3.

  A second reason for paying attention to rejectionist thinking is that as conscious beings we not only have the capacity to evaluate human existence we have a duty to do so. In order to do this and to make authentic choices concerning existence we need to be fully aware of our situation. The anti-existential perspective helps to deepen our awareness. For example, the decision whether to procreate or not is one of the most significant moral and metaphysical decisions we have to make in our lives. Quite recently Christine Overall (2012), a philosopher who is not an anti-natalist, has drawn attention to the moral issues involved in the decision to have a child, an issue she discusses quite comprehensively. Clearly, in making this decision we need to take anti-natalist arguments on board.

  Anti-natalists, e.g. Benatar (2006), Hayry (2004), Srivastava ( 2006), argue that bringing someone into the world who has not asked to be born, to thrust life upon them and to put them through the painful business of living constitutes an immoral act. Thus children come into the world literally as someone else’s creature and we can say that their life is founded in unfreedom. They are conscripts to life. Moreover, they are often considered as a means to an end, i.e. we produce children to serve our needs and interests, to entertain us, to pass our genes on, to ensure our biological continuity, to look after us in old age etc. Apart from its dubious morality, procreation also raises metaphysical issues. It amounts to endorsing existence and makes us indirectly complicit in all the evils that existence entails. Thus we need to be fully aware of the metaphysical choice and responsibility involved in the act of procreation.

  These are only some of the philosophical issues surrounding procreation and we need to consider anti-natal arguments seriously. This is particularly important since sexual intercourse and reproduction comes ‘naturally’ to us – instincts, social conventions and religious teachings all conspire to incline us that way. Consider, for example, the age-old idea that women have a maternal instinct that craves satisfaction. it is only recently that this has been found to be a myth. Motherhood as the essential destiny of women has turned out to be little more than a natalist ideology propagated historically by patriarchal institutions. Millions of women, especially in developed countries, are choosing not to have children with apparently no instinctual urge to reproduce. Nonetheless voluntary childlessness, especially on the part of the married, remains taboo in Western ‘advanced’ societies. It is still considered as a form of deviant behavior (Defago 2005; Basten 2009; Overall 2012). Given the strength of conventional wisdom and the status quo it is important to pay attention to dissenting viewpoints concerning procreation.

  Finally the importance of rejectionist thought lies in its open articulation of value judgments concerning life. This goes against the dominant view of philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world, which became established in early 20th century, viz. that it is not the business of philosophy to make value judgments, since they amount to little more than stating the personal preferences of the philosopher. Logical positivism, and linguistic analysis, two of the three major currents of philosophical thought in the 20th century, held this view strongly. The third, viz. existentialism, differs radically in many ways from the other two. It is centrally concerned with the nature and problems of human existence. But unlike the theistic existentialism of Kierkegaard and others, non-theistic approaches, notably those of Heidegger and Sartre also stay away from making value judgments. Rather they emphasize individual freedom to decide and choose. Both thinkers stress the importance of authentic choice, i.e. a choice freely arrived at, in full awareness of one’s situation as well as of the wider implications of one’s choice (Sartre 1948; Watts 2001, 34-5, 56-60). And although Heidegger provides systematic and insightful analysis of man’s being-in-the-world, e.g. the contingent nature of our birth, our awareness of temporality and the finite nature of our existence, he has little to say about procreation and most certainly nothing by way of an overall judgment about the nature of human existence (Magee 1978, 82-3, 92). Sartre, on the other hand, expresses strong rejectionist, including anti-natal views in some of his literary writings, notably in his landmark novel Nausea published in 1938. But it is Roquentin, the hero of the novel, who expresses these views and they cannot be equated with those of the author. Although Sartre’s own biography seems to corroborate his anti-natal stance there is very little in his philosophical writings on procreation. Moreover Sartre’s philosophy, not unlike that of Heidegger, makes no particular value judgments concerning existence. The idea is that each individual must decide for herself in full awareness of her situation (Sartre 1948). We should also note that Sartre’s celebrated lecture on existentialism (Sartre 1948) claims that it is a form of humanism implying that it affirms or at least accepts human existence as a given. In sum we could say that atheistic existentialism, as it developed in the 20th century, not only steers clear of value judgments about existence but also fails to consider the philosophical significance and implications of procreation.

  True, there is by now a large body of philosophical literature concerned with aspects of procreation, e.g. the right and duty to have children, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, and many other bio-ethical issues (Overall 2012, 12; Singer 1993). But much of it is an ad hoc treatment of these issues on moral grounds and quite unrelated to the broader philosophy of existence, including that of procreation. (Benatar 2004, especially Introduction; Overall 2012, 12-3). As we shall see later (Ch.3) Benatar’s work may be seen as a step towards bridging this gap. Moreover much of the writings of the philosophers relevant to these issues tend to be ‘pro-life’ rather than ‘pro-choice’ and from this viewpoint too rejectionist philosophy deserves attention.


  Besides religious and philosophical approaches we also look at modern literary perspectives with a rejectionist viewpoint. The work of Samuel Beckett and Jean-Paul Sartre may be considered as key exemplars of this viewpoint. Beckett is undoubtedly the anti-existential writer par excellence. In this regard Beckett is to literature what Schopenhauer is to philosophy. As for Sartre, his early novel Nausea is a landmark literary presentation of the contingency and superfluity of existence. In this early work his stance is clearly against existence. Few modern literary works are comparable in their expression of anti-existential viewpoint to those of Beckett and Sartre.

  The Inclusion of literary perspectives besides the religious and philosophical broadens the anti-existential canvas. It underlines the universality or generality of the phenomenon which finds its expression in all the major cultural forms – religious, philosophical and artistic - concerned with the human condition. Of course literature is only one of the artistic modes of expression but it is the one that speaks most directly and intelligibly about the experience of existence. True, unlike the religious or philosophical modes it is not meant to provide either a diagnosis or a solution of the problem. But in giving artistic expression to the malaise of existence it adds a qualitatively different dimension to our consciousness of the problem. Major exemplars of all three modes of anti-existential expression – religious, philosophical and literary – are examined in this book.

  The book is organized as follows. Chapter 1 is about religious perspectives. It explores the Hindu and Buddhist views of existence paying particular attention to the concepts of moksha and nirvana and the means and ends of liberation articulated by these religions. We note the spiritual and mystical nature of their approach to transcending existence.