D
Debating Procreation (With David
Benatar)
Anna Wysocki
Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA
Synonyms
Antinatalism; Natalism; The Procreation Debate
Definition
Antinatalism is the philosophical position that
procreation is unethical. David Benatar and
David Wasserman debate this perspective in the
book Debating Procreation.
Introduction
The permissibility of procreation is a subject that
is not often debated, but David Benatar and David
Wasserman take on this task in Debating Procre-
ation (Benatar and Wasserman 2015). Benatar, an
antinatalist, and Wasserman, a natalist, each pre-
sent arguments supporting their positions and
offering critiques to the opposing argument in an
effort to answer a philosophical question: Is it
wrong to reproduce?
# Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
T.K. Shackelford, V.A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_462-1
The Procreation Debate
Antinatalism is based on the premise that it should
never be permissible to reproduce. However,
Benatar distinguishes between the ethics of pro-
creation and the regulation of procreation. He
asserts that the moral assertion that one should
not procreate cannot be equated to advocating
for the removal of the individual’s right to repro-
duce. Antinatalism is based on the premise that
procreation causes harm, and, by not reproducing,
harm can be attenuated. Antinatalists argue that
being born is always harmful to the individual and
others, and that the opposite, not being born, is
better. Therefore, Benatar’s task is to convince
readers of the harmfulness of procreation. In
order to do this, he introduces three arguments:
(1) the asymmetry argument, (2) the quality of life
argument, and (3) the misanthropic argument.
The asymmetry argument contrasts both the
harm and the benefit associated with existence
and nonexistence. Weights (i.e., positive, nega-
tive, or neutral) are assigned to each category,
with Benatar contending that being born is always
harmful (i.e., that the negatives outweigh the pos-
itives). The quality of life argument looks to
extend this premise to conclude that all life is
harmful enough to equate procreation with
unethical behavior. Benatar argues that (1) humans
are not good assessors of the quality of their own
life because of psychological mechanisms like the
optimism bias (i.e., that we are inclined to see
positives more than negatives; Andrews and
2 Debating Procreation (With David Benatar)
Withey 2012), (2) that there are many small incon-
veniences in everyday life (e.g., hunger) that are
often overlooked, and (3) that there is risk for
large-scale harm in every individual’s life. He
equates the combination of these three factors,
particularly combined with the absence of harm
that he links to nonexistence, as sufficient evi-
dence that all life is harmful. Finally, the misan-
thropic argument contends that, not only is
procreation harmful to the individual who is
being born but also to other humans, other spe-
cies, and the environment. These three arguments
are the foundation of Benatar’s premise that pro-
creation is never permissible under any
circumstances.
Wasserman begins his natalist argument by
critiquing a fundamental assumption used in
many antinatalist beliefs; he believes that the
overreliance on weighing the avoidance of harm
as more compelling than the accrual of benefits
weakens the overall antinatalist arguments. Ulti-
mately, he believes that the benefits one can
accrue over a lifetime, such as the expected good
from the parent–child relationship, can offset the
harm. However, Wasserman stresses that, while
he believes there are benefits to procreation, it is
never obligatory to procreate nor is it ever harmful
to not procreate. Wasserman’s pronatalist stance
on procreation is more moderate than some other
pronatalists and the general public (see Benatar
and Wasserman 2015). While he does not believe
that procreation is always wrong, he does believe
that there are many circumstances where it should
not be permissible to procreate.
Conclusion
Without being born, one cannot suffer. Without
being born, one cannot experience the joys of life.
These are the foundations on which Benatar and
Wasserman build their arguments for natalism and
antinatalism. While various philosophers have
contributed to this discussion, Benatar and
Wasserman’s Debating Procreation provides an
excellent overview of the arguments for those new
to this philosophical debate.
Cross-References
▶ Better Never to Have Been
▶ David Benatar
▶ David Wasserman
▶ Permissibility of Reproduction
References
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (2012). Social indicators
of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality.
New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Benatar, D., & Wasserman, D. (2015). Debating procre-
ation: Is it wrong to reproduce? Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.