𝗔 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀
𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁…
*Antinatalism – the philosophical view that it
is morally wrong for people to have children.
*Misanthropy – a generalized dislike,
distrust, disgust, contempt, or hatred of the
human species, human nature, or society.
Even though David Benatar
is best known for offering a philanthropic
argument for antinatalism (stating that
individuals cannot consent to their creation
and that since procreating necessarily involves
creating victims, it is better not to force
anyone into existence), he has also developed
a distinct misanthropic argument. He also
speculates that misanthropic arguments are
even more likely to be met with scorn than
philanthropic arguments. This is because while
the latter are in some sense about protecting
individuals, the former focuses on the bad
aspects of humanity (Benatar 2015, 35).
Here’s Benatar’s basic misanthropic argument
for antinatalism:
We have a (presumptive) duty to desist from
bringing into existence new members of a
species that causes (and will likely continue to
cause) vast amounts of pain, suffering, death.
To defend it David Benatar appeals to
humanity’s generally poor impulses, their
destructiveness towards one another, the
suffering they cause other animals, and the
damage that they do to the environment.
𝗶. 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀
Regarding humanity’s poor impulse control
in general, Benatar is quick to observe that
the vast majority of human achievements are
not possible for most humans. We therefore
should not judge the human species in general
based on the performance of exceptional
people. In fact, it is now well-documented that
humans exhibit numerous cognitive biases
which cause us to both think and act
irrationally (Benatar 2015, 36).
These cognitive failings often cause
humans to harm each other. We exhibit an
extreme tendency toward conformity and
following authority, even when doing so leads
us to hurt each other (Benatar 2015, 37).
Even if one contends that our intelligence
compensates for these moral deficiencies,
it is difficult to defend this claim in light of
human destructiveness:
Many hundreds of millions have been
murdered in mass killings. In the twentieth
century, the genocides include those against
the Herero in German South-West Africa; the
Armenians in Turkey; the Jews, Roma, and
Sinti in Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe;
the Tutsis in Rwanda; and Bosnian Muslims in
the former Yugoslavia. Other twentieth-century
mass killings were those perpetrated by
Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot and
his Khmer Rouge. But these mass killings
were by no means the first. Genghis Khan, for
example, was responsible for killing 11.1% of
all human inhabitants of Earth during his reign
in the 13th century. The gargantuan numbers
should not obscure the gruesome details of
how these deaths were inflicted and the sorts
of suffering the victims endured on their way to
death. Humans kill other humans by hacking,
knifing, hanging, bludgeoning, decapitating,
shooting, starving, freezing, suffocating,
drowning, crushing, gassing, poisoning, and
bombing them (Benatar 2015, 39).
Humans also do not just murder each other.
They also “rape, assault, flog, maim, brand,
kidnap, enslave, torture, and torment other
humans” (Benatar 2015, 40). Though these are
the worst harms, humans also frequently “lie,
steal, cheat, speak hurtfully, break confidences
and promises, violate privacy, and act
ungratefully, inconsiderately, duplicitously,
impatiently, and unfaithfully” (Benatar 2015,
43). Even if justice is sought, it is hardly ever
achieved. Many of the most evil leaders in
human history ruled for the course of their
natural lives, while others had peaceful
retirements or were only exiled (Benatar 2015,
43). In sum, “‘Bad guys’ regularly ‘finish first’.
They lack the scruples that provide an inner
restraint, and the external restraints are either
absent or inadequate” (Benatar 2015, 43).
𝗶𝗶. 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀
The amount of suffering that humans
inflict on animals each year is hard to fathom.
Given that the vast majority of humans are
not vegetarians or vegans, most of them are
complicit in this suffering. Consider that
“over 63 billion sheep, pigs, cattle, horses,
goats, camels, buffalo, rabbits, chickens,
ducks, geese, turkeys, and other such animals
are slaughtered every year for human
consumption. In addition, approximately 103.6
billion aquatic animals are killed for human
consumption and non-food uses”
(Benatar 2015, 44). These numbers exclude
the hundreds of millions of male chicks killed
every year because they cannot produce eggs.
It also excludes the millions of dogs and cats
that are eaten in Asia every year (Benatar
2015, 44). Each year there are also 5 billion
bycatch sea animals, which are those caught
in nets, but not wanted. Finally, at least 115
million animals are experimented on each year
(Benatar 2015, 45). Furthermore, “the deaths
of the overwhelming majority of these animals
are painful and stressful” (Benatar 2015, 44).
The average meat eater will consume at least
1690 animals in their lifetime (a rather low
estimate) which is an extremely large amount
of harm (Benatar 2015, 54-55).
𝗶𝗶𝗶. 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
Humans are also incredibly destructive
to the environment. The human population
is growing exponentially and the negative
environmental effects per person continue
to increase, too. This is partly due to
industrialization and a steady growth in per
capita consumption (Benatar 2015, 48).
As a result:
The consequences include unprecedented
levels of pollution. Filth is spewed in massive
quantities into the air, rivers, lakes, and
oceans, with obvious effects on those humans
and animals who breath the air, live in or near
the water, or who get their water from those
sources. The carbon dioxide emissions are
having a ‘greenhouse effect,’ leading to global
warming. As a result, the icecaps are melting,
water levels are rising, and climate patterns
are changing. The melting icecaps are
depriving some animals of their natural habitat.
The rising sea levels endanger coastal
communities and threaten to engulf small,
low-lying island states, such as Nauru, Tuvalu,
and the Maldives. Such an outcome would be
an obvious harm to its citizens and other
inhabitants. The depletion of the ozone layer is
exposing Earth’s inhabitants to greater levels
of ultraviolet light. Humans are encroaching on
the wild, leading to animal and plant
extinctions. The destruction of the rain forests
exacerbates the global warming problem by
removing the trees that would help counter the
increasing levels of CO2 (Benatar 2015, 48).
CO2 emissions per year per person are
massive. While they are lower in developing
countries, they tend to have much higher
birthrates than their wealthier counterparts.
As the population increases, adding more
humans will invariably harm the environment.
𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲
Presumptive duties are defeasible. The duty
only holds if there are no good reasons to do
otherwise (Benatar 2015, 51). One possible
way of avoiding the misanthropic argument is
to counter that the good that humans do is
pervasive enough to defeat this presumptive
duty. If this is right, then procreation will often
be permissible (Benatar 2015, 51).
However,
in light of the vast harm that humans
do, meeting the burden of proof regarding the
amount of counteracting good that humans
do, is going to be extremely difficult.
𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
𝗜𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲: Joan Cornellà
Celá debata | RSS tejto debaty