Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Why it is Immoral to Procreate

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Posts: 5
Joined: June 3rd, 2008, 6:39 pm

Why it is Immoral to Procreate

Post by antiprocreation » June 3rd, 2008, 7:16 pm

It is my premise that it is immoral for any human to procreate. The reason for this stems from one idea. Life has much suffering. This suffering has two aspects. One is inherent, meaning that it cannot be changed by circumstances one is born into or experiences, but every human in every culture must contend with. The inherent suffering includes 3 categories.

One category is survival. Anything to do with keeping oneself alive in a society (work, consumption, trade, production, hunting, gathering, etc..) is something which is a form of suffering that we all must deal with. We toil, struggle, go through small and large unpleasant annoyances to maintain ourselves. Next, is the category of boredom. We become bored when we are not engaged in some activity or thought, and we must find an arbitrary goal to keep us out of boredom. Because of our inherent need to escape boredom when we are in that feeling of voidedness we are usually not in it too long. Finally there is the entertainment, or ways we find to kill time to escape the boredom. These fleeting entertainments are temporary solutions to try to escape the boredom of human existence. It could be any arbitrary goal of making a new business, dancing around the tribal fire and making jewelry out of bone to meditating or reading a book. The fleeting entertainments we use to fill the voidedness of boredom is endless. For these three reasons we are inherently suffering.

Besides the inherent suffering there is the external sufferings we are born into and which we may or may not experience at some point in our lives. That is emotional trauma, physical trauma of some sort resulting in clashes with other people, clashes with mental illness, clashes with natural phenomena, clashes with disease, clashes with small anoyances of daily activity.

For all these reasons, our moral imperative should be to act in the best interests of the not yet born generations of humans, the potential humans if you will, and not "cast" them into the world by the act of procreation. By not procreating you are not creating sources for more suffering in the world. It is too late for those who already exist (suicide is a different matter as it deals with the subject of whether it is better to keep existing, this is about whether it is better to start an existence).

In a similar vein of the anti-procreation stance, a philosopher named David Benetar wrote a book titled "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence". Briefly paraphrasing his premise, he states that: the presense of pleasure is good and the presense of pain is bad. However, while the absence of pain is good, if a non-existent potential person is deprived of a non-existent pleasure, than that is not bad. In other words, a non-existent "potential being" will not be deprived of the good of existence as he doesn't exist to be deprived of it.

To understand more about what I'm saying or to see a little more about where I'm coming from. Please go to: condemnedtoexistence.blogspot- This site is more of a real essay on what the anti-procreation movement is all about. A second site is anti-procreationmovement.blogspot - this is more of a rant that is unedited, but has the same basic idea. Ok, feel free to criticise and critique my argument. It is philosophy afterall. But feel free to agree.

User avatar
Posts: 694
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post by pjkeeley » June 5th, 2008, 10:54 pm


Your belief that the absence of pain is good, while the absence of pleasure is not bad, would make suicide the most rational course of action for you to follow. By staying alive you are being inconsistent with your beliefs.

The problem is that you are trying to pass off your opinion (that life is sh*t) as objective fact. If you did have children they might live to hold the opposite opinion, as I do.


Posts: 39
Joined: June 6th, 2008, 10:30 am

Post by jehocifer » June 6th, 2008, 11:20 am

As pjkeeley said, all people must form such opinions on their own. Feel as you wish. It is your right as a human. If you don't wish to have children, that is also your choice. However, to say that it's best for all of us to shut down our baby-making production has many holes. The first is simply that so many people disagree, and they have the right to do so. Whether I want to have children or not, I am content with having the choice to do so. Not to mention this is all based on individual perspective (but isn't everything, really?). I personally do not feel that a few of the things you mentioned are truly suffering. We are given an excellent opportunity to explore different experiences, including emotional ones. Suffering, is fortunately, a part of that. I have gained more insight through suffering and heartache than through almost anything else. Of course, I'm not an advocate of starvation, disease, and war. But in truth, the majority of suffering, especially the big ones like starvation, murder, and discrimination are all caused by humans lacking the ability to work together as a species. Because of this, people become pessimistic. They wish to give up on the human race instead of working like a pack to make things better. If we just worked together, we could eliminate pessimism, end the majority of suffering, and continue the joyful and pleasurable act of producing offspring.

Posts: 6
Joined: July 1st, 2008, 6:26 am

Post by fishfool » July 1st, 2008, 6:34 am

thoughts like this are why Western civilization is dying and Islam will soon rule the world.

Posts: 1
Joined: July 6th, 2008, 2:10 pm

Post by Mortieus » July 6th, 2008, 10:01 pm

Survival, Boredom and Entertainment are the three categories listed which as spoken define the drab routine that is our lives. As for Survival, food gathering, hunting, and working are our basis for experience, from our experience we can derive knowledge and from our knowledge we can attain wisdom. Besides, nothing is work unless you would rather be doing something else. Secondly, Boredom. Boredom is a choice. If boredom becomes such a major factor in his or her life, that person should engauge himself in either classification one or three. One would have to carry around quite a bit of distain to be so disconnected and would need to rediscover beauty. Thirdly, entertainment. If one is finding that he or she is in need of "killing time" then at that point it would be important to recognize that we as humans are finite and every moment could be our last. Its has been said that altruisim is the meaning of life, one could perhaps find great joy there. In Closing at risk of sounding a bit cliche what doesent kill you will only make you stronger. I would imagine that perspective and the reality one creates for himself while disconected from the universe could appear quite dismal, but it could always be worse. Take a visit to Somalia. I believe that most of us have a lot to be thankful for, If I had to think of something we have in common it would be our computers, this site, and the vast availability of knowledge and insight it provides us. As for the immorality of procreation, I myself would rather be alive and have the choice to be discontent than never have know what discontentment really truly is.

Best Regards,

Posts: 63
Joined: June 25th, 2008, 1:42 am
Location: United States

Post by Dreamshift » July 12th, 2008, 5:36 pm

Nothing you have had in your experiences has given you happiness? No joy? No love? I have loved, and continue to do so. I find the beauty in creation, the wonder in mathimatics. I exist, and can enjoy these things. Why can we not find beauty in the distruction as well? Building Demolition is beautiful, the delacate mathematics it takes to pull down a building without damaging too much the surrounding area. Death is part of our lives, as is pain--they are balanced though, but the life and love around us and in us. Life is no cake walk, nor is it too terrible to bare. Our advances in technology and philosophy ever lead us closer to a more harmoious and therfore less painful existance. We die and feel fewer pains than we did before. Many nations have denounced slavery, many more have universal sufferage (ironic truly). Life is a journey, not a destination. Enjoy the ride, but if you decide its not worth your time, then you can decide to take it away.

Should we deny theoretical children the right to they choice to enjoy life? These people exist in our minds, in the abstract world,and if it can be concieved it can exist (even if not concieved, it may be in existance). this opinion seems to draw more to a belief of all the percieved pain in the world, without an equal interest in the beauty and pleasure. It isn't a balanced theory, nor very sound--I object to ceasing the human race because its hard to exist. But if you wish to abstain, that just means more room for my own children.

Posts: 151
Joined: July 8th, 2008, 11:59 am
Location: In the moment

Antiprocreation stated: Why it is immoral to procreate.

Post by willowtreeme » July 14th, 2008, 6:11 pm

I am not by any means a "philosopher" but I have never come across this statement -- but as it does question "life" in an extremely radical sense, both biologically and existentially, I can only add a thought or two.

First, you would deny your own place in a beautiful, albeit, at the same time, tragic, struggling, groaning Universe?

The Universe and life would not have come into existence if there were not a higher/deeper meaning to it that we can't fathom as human beings. There have been multitudes of men and women who are brilliant but in many ways the human mind is finite -- at the same time the human mind is "infinite" -- perhaps a contradiction in terms. We cannot really conceive of God's/the Universe's greater plan for us because of our finite minds. We cannot see the End, so we cannot have all the answers -- all we can do is philosophise -- that is also part of the beauty of the human mind which God ordained for us.

If the choice/the burden was yours, would you destroy the human race, the whole of the universe -- [just in case there is life on other planets]? You say that procreation is immoral -- if you take that concept to its end -- what do you have left? On some level, I have always believed that humanity would not have been created, had not God/the Universe needed us. I seem to have run off at a tangent here.

Had your parents thought it was "immoral to procreate", you would not have the freedom or the existence to make that statement.

What about Einstein, Scweitzer, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Martin Luther King, Jr., Maximilian Kolbe (the priest in Auchwitz who stepped forward and gave his life for another man who survived Auchwitz -- does that other man wish Kolbe had not existed?
What about the unborn children who are aborted? Whether their life would be a happy one or a sad one, if they were able to make a choice, do you think they would feel "immoral" and have their existence denied?

My life has at times been existentially speaking, a living hell, but at the same time, it has also been at times a heaven on Earth. But, for me, I would always choose LIFE, LIFE, LIFE.

We all have the choice to procreate or not. But to procreate is not immoral -- that would be denying the existence of GOOD in the world and would be espousing EVIL. There is both.

Someone said that the only way for evil to thrive in the world is for good men to do nothing. Why I said that I know not why.


Posts: 8
Joined: February 16th, 2009, 5:43 am

Post by magicmusician » February 16th, 2009, 7:48 am

Ok then something else we have to look at is the aspect of religion in why people procreate

A lot of people see a child as a gift from God

which is a good way to look at it

I am of the belief in opposites


without feeling the bad emotions we can not experience the great things life has to offer fully

I hope that all here find ultimate sadness - at some point
because then - and only then - can we feel alive!

Posts: 13
Joined: December 1st, 2009, 6:02 pm

Post by Dylan2dylan » December 1st, 2009, 6:37 pm

i am 15 and i share your veiws to an extent i believe that the struggles and sufferings that we go though makes life worth living to make the next generations lives easier to live though. If we do not procreate as you say then i would not be here nor you or anyone else it is nessecary for our survivel as a race it is by the continued procreation that allows for or beliefs to go on. I have other veiws on this matter is that you should not procreate with someone you barly know nor should you just because you have lust what is needed is that you need to rise above our human hormones.

Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda » December 2nd, 2009, 7:42 am

#1 is rational and I agree but #1 lacks two considerations.
One is argument for not procreating for the sake of lessening the burden on natural resources.

Two is arguing for not procreating to save possible beings the inevitable suffering that existence includes.

Any individual who lives according to ethic number One is more responsible than most people who apparently reproduce with no view to future shortages.Including me, my excuse is that I reproduced many years before future shortages were aired and we had enough money to provide for babies.

If everybody behaved according to Two, there would soon be no more human beings. While this would be good for the natural environment, the good that humans can and do do would be lost and lost forever.This course (and this is the point that #1 makes)would save untold sufferings, and would therefore be good. Perhaps this suicide of our species is what will happen to us unless individuals' natural selfishness wins the day.

Has it ever happened that an animal species or a human group commits suicide because of shortages, epidemic, or threat of war?

(Dylan, you make me hope the human race continues)

Posts: 3323
Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Re: Why it is Immoral to Procreate

Post by ape » December 2nd, 2009, 9:53 am

antiprocreation wrote:It is my premise that it is immoral for any human to procreate.

Hi antiprocreation,


If it is immoral to procreate, then it is also immoral for me to procreate the idea that it is immoral to procreate. :idea:

Posts: 944
Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am

Post by athena » December 2nd, 2009, 10:34 am

God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. Perhaps there is a higher purpose to our existence than being happy?

However, having children before being prepared to have them, will likely have harmful results, and therefore would be immoral. Having too many children, stressing the environment and creating excessive competition for what the environment can provide, is harmful, and therefore, immoral. The morality of procreation is relative to the conditions.

The answer to your question Belinda, is yes. Unfortunately, I do not remember the details, but a religious group decided life is suffering and the whole group decided to end their suffering by not reproducing. As I wrote that- several groups that committed group suicide came to mind. The most recent are the group suicides that are occurring in Japan. Here the most common method is to meet other suicidal people on line, and the get together in a car and burn coal, causing death by carbon dioxide. Japan is already suffering a low birth rate, and can not afford to loose individuals. On the other hand, I have read competition in Japan is excessive. Their drive for excellence may be having a negative impact?

Posts: 207
Joined: October 22nd, 2009, 2:49 pm


Post by JPhillips » December 2nd, 2009, 2:07 pm

Our beliefs should support our rationale on this.

Coming from an atheist and Darwinist who see life as unjoyous and difficult, the argument that procreation is wrong makes good sense to me. However, there are atheists and Darwinists who believe a short, relatively meaningless life (when compared to the beliefs of those who believe in eternal life in which a sort of paradise is obtainable) is better than no life at all.

Any one who believes in God or in a greater purpose for our existence on earth would disagree. There are many religious groups who claim life has a greater meaning than can be defined by the life of any one individual through the course of one lifetime.

Christians, I think, would tend to say every life is sacred because it is a gift from God. Christians and others who believe in reincarnation, as I do, would say that a birth is just the continuation of the journey of a soul in obtaining spiritual enlightenment. If you adhere to this belief, you may also adhere to the belief that each and every birth has been planned or arranged by parents and the child while existing in a spiritual state, prior to the actual event.

Posts: 210
Joined: December 20th, 2009, 5:02 pm

Post by Algol » December 22nd, 2009, 12:48 am

In Nietzsche's "The Birth of Tragedy" he relates a story concerning a conversation between King Midas and Silenus, a daemon who raised and afterward followed Dionysus. Midas asked him "What is man's greatest happiness?" repeatedly but the daemon refused to answer. Finally, after being thoroughly annoyed by the King's persistence, Silenus responded:

"Ephemeral wretch, begotten by accident and toil, why do you force me to tell you what it would be your greatest boon not to hear? What would be best for you is quite beyond your reach; not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best is to die soon!"

I'd like to hear how Apollo would reply to such a claim, but that seems beyond our reach presently as well.

Posts: 1874
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am

Post by Meleagar » December 22nd, 2009, 7:45 am

If you see life in terms of suffering, then it would be immoral to procreate.

Post Reply