Anti-Natalism: Rejectionist Philosophy from Buddhism to Benatar

154 Pages·2016·0.7 MB·English

by  Ken Coates

A -N : R
NTI ATALISM EJECTIONIST
P B
HILOSOPHY FROM UDDHISM TO
B
ENATAR
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
th
Chapter 2: Philosophical Perspectives :19 Century
Arthur Schopenhauer: Suffering and Willlessness
Eduard von Hartmann: Reason over Will
th
Chapter 3: Philosophical Perspectives: 20 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
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