Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, and the absurd. Essays on the existentialist tradition and its uneasy relationship with both nihilism and hope.
Theological defenses of procreation fail to resolve the problem of evil, suggesting that if a creator exists, its gift of life is not one of love, but of unjustifiable risk and suffering.
A defense of the view that reducing suffering takes ethical priority over creating happiness. We explore the philosophical arguments for this moral asymmetry.
The existentialist's confrontation with a meaningless universe forces a profound question: if life's meaning is a constant struggle, can we justify imposing it on the unborn?
Derek Parfit's Repugnant Conclusion suggests a massive population with lives barely worth living is a better future than a small, thriving one. This essay unpacks the paradox and its dark implications for reproductive ethics.
Pronatalism is not a neutral stance but a deeply embedded ideology. This essay unpacks the cultural, religious, and economic machinery that promotes procreation as a default imperative, often at the expense of individual autonomy and ethical consideration.
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?