Anti-natalism is incompatible with Theory X

2Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The anti-natalist philosopher David Benatar defends a position asserting that all life is harmful, and that it is, therefore, wrong to have children. In this paper, I critique Benatar's less-discussed claim that his anti-natalism provides solutions to population ethics problems, such as the Non-Identity Problem, the Repugnant Conclusion, and the Mere Addition Problem, all of which are presented in Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons. Since the publication of his Better Never to Have Been, Benatar has continued to claim that its provision of such solutions strengthens his defense of anti-natalism. Although Benatar's view has received much criticism, this argument has not been discussed at length. I undertake a thorough examination of the argument and identify reasons to reject it. The central point of my critique is that the implications of Benatar's views in determining ranges of wrong and not-wrong cases of procreation are extensionally inadequate when applied to the problems of population ethics.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yoshizawa, F. (2024). Anti-natalism is incompatible with Theory X. Bioethics, 38(2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13248

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free