Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, and the absurd. Essays on the existentialist tradition and its uneasy relationship with both nihilism and hope.
Can we harm someone by bringing them into existence? Derek Parfit's famous philosophical puzzle challenges our understanding of procreative ethics and forces a confrontation with the arguments for antinatalism.
While arguments for procreation appeal to joy, gratitude, and potential, they fail to overcome antinatalism's core claim: that imposing certain harm for uncertain good is ethically indefensible.
Rising rates of mental illness and social alienation are not isolated crises but symptoms of a deeper existential predicament, lending weight to the antinatalist critique of procreation.
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.
Existentialism offers powerful tools for confronting a meaningless world. But by focusing on the existing individual, it fails to ask the most fundamental question: is it ethical to impose existence in the first place?
This essay explores the tension between existentialist meaning-making and the ethics of procreation, questioning if a self-created purpose can justify imposing an absurd existence on another.
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.
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?
Benatar's asymmetry argument explained in plain English: why David Benatar claims coming into existence is always a harm, plus the main objections to his view.