Dukkha, impermanence, and the cessation of suffering. Essays placing Buddhist thought in conversation with Western philosophical pessimism and antinatalist ethics.
The duty to prevent harm is more urgent than the duty to create good. This essay defends the ethical priority of alleviating suffering over promoting happiness.
While not explicitly antinatalist, Buddhist doctrine's core analysis of suffering (dukkha) provides a potent philosophical framework for the conclusion that non-birth is the most compassionate act.
Antinatalism isn't misanthropy; it's a complex ethical philosophy arguing that bringing new sentient beings into existence is a net harm. This article explores why.
What is antinatalism? A clear guide to the ethical philosophy that argues it may be better never to have been born — core claims, key thinkers, and critiques.
From Schopenhauer's Will to modern antinatalism, we explore the deep philosophical argument that non-existence may be preferable to a life of inevitable suffering.
We rarely question the morality of creating a new life, but a growing philosophical movement argues it's an ethical gamble we shouldn't take.
Birth is the one event that happens to everyone, yet no one consents to it. This article explores the challenging philosophical view of antinatalism, which questions the very ethics of procreation.
The decision to have a child is often seen as deeply personal. But what if it's the most profound ethical act one can perform?
Is it ethical to bring new people into a world of inevitable suffering? This article explores the core arguments for and against the philosophy of antinatalism.
Antinatalism vs childfree: one is a personal lifestyle choice, the other an ethical argument that procreation itself is wrong. Here is how they actually differ.