/lit/ - Literature

>>22112185
>>22112041
>Anti-natalism
>morally admirable/permissible
To argue against Anti-natalists is to argue against the most absurd logic, and to agree with it is to treat logical proceedings as the end-all be-all of human existence.
Say there was an 8 year old boy, little Timmy, with loving parents. Not a particular gifted boy, nor a particular unintelligent one. He spends his days at school, doing his homework before dinner, and spending the nights playing video games or with his toys. He is an average boy, making scattered grades of A's, B's, and C's.
Then one day little Timmy brings home his first F. Timmy cries. The parents, understandably, are disappointed, and wish to discipline little Timmy. They could take away his video game console for a week, ground him for a weekend, or whatever traditional middle-class discipline they choose. But taking away the console will cause suffering, with no guarantee it will fix the problem. Furthermore, no matter the path they choose, Future F's will start the cycle anew.

So instead, they decide to end the suffering entirely. They deceitfully forgive little Timmy, promising no punishment, and slip horse tranquilizers into his favorite meal. When little Timmy is unconscious, the father strangles him and buries him in a covert grave. The mother and father employ a hypnotist to purge the memory of the murder and then flee to some third world beach, living out their lives in paradise, drinking mimosas and watching beautiful sunsets until they die.
From a suffering/pleasure dichotomy, the parents have chosen the correct path. Little Timmy will no longer be sad, they will no longer be disappointed, and the school will enjoy a stronger academic score. They themselves will enjoy pleasure on that beach with little pain. The total amount of suffering in the world has been reduced. Bonus, statistically little Timmy would have more chance to grow to be a murderer than a saint. Thereby the parents may have also prevented future suffering.

I cannot think of a moral system where this is admirable or permissible, but logically it is entirely sound. It's utterly absurd.
But of course, anti-natalists will argue that little Timmy should've never been born at all, and the parents could have enjoyed the beach without a murder.
They seem to not see the most blatant moral contradiction in their position. They are fundamentally denying freedom. No one chooses to be born, I will grant that, but everyone chooses to continue their life. Once a person is able to cognize suicide and its ramifications, they face the existential choice of either continuing their life, or ending it.
Anti-natalism seeks to rob humans of that choice.
From Kant's "rational free moral agent" standard this is morally appalling.
"Should I wish everyone would rob me of choice, even if it the choice is a difficult one?"
Obviously no
Willingly choosing to not have kids, and to encourage others to do the same, is to attempt to deny freedom to the blameless.

There is a short tale spoken by a sea captain in colonial days I wanted to share, in Irving's The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon.

"I was once sailing in a fine stout ship across the banks of Newfoundland, one of those heavy fogs which prevail in those parts rendered it impossible for us to see far ahead even in the day time; but at night the weather was so thick that we could not distinguish any object at twice the length of the ship. I kept lights at the mast head and a constant watch forward to look out for fishing smacks, which are accustomed to lie at anchor on the banks. The wind was blowing a smacking breeze and we were going at a great rate through the water. Suddenly the watch gave the alarm of 'a sail ahead!