| Title | : | Debating Procreation: Is It Wrong to Reproduce? (Debating Ethics) |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | - |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Kindle Edition |
| Number of Pages | : | 282 |
| Publication | : | First published March 31, 2015 |
David Wasserman defends procreation against the anti-natalist challenge. He outlines a variety of moderate pro-natalist positions, which all see procreation as often permissible but never required. After criticizing the main anti-natalist arguments, he reviews those pronatalist positions. He argues that constraints on procreation are best understood in terms of the role morality of prospective parents, considers different views of that role morality, and argues for one that imposes only limited constraints based on the well-being of the future child. He then argues that the expected good of a future child and of the parent-child relationship can provide a strong justification for procreation in the face of expected adversities without giving individuals any moral reason to procreate
Debating Procreation: Is It Wrong to Reproduce? (Debating Ethics) Reviews
-
Getting through the 2nd half of this book was a drudge.
The first half is a concise summary of Benatar's strong argument against procreation, and the latter half is a muddled rebuttal from Wasserman. I really wanted to discover some legitimate criticisms of Benatar's position, but Wasserman failed to deliver the goods. He spends very little time on Benatar's strongest points and ample time on subsidiary points. He also spends a lot of time exploring unrelated issues in procreative ethics, which, although interesting, have no bearing on Benatar's arguments and the central question this book is about. Oh, and it appears his sections weren't proof-read; there are lots of typos and shit.
Benatar's section is great, but I'd recommend his main work "Better Never To Have Been" for a more complete exploration of his position. -
So... I've been reading a lot and somehow this seems to be the end of the road. I'm not done reading, but somehow I feel like it's the bottom of the barrel with these kinds of subjects. Like Camus said about the only philosophical issue: "Do I kill myself or have a cup of coffee?", this seems to take it even further by asking if it would've been actually be better never having to be existed at all in the first place. The graph here is absolutely hilarious: "Existing: suffering (bad), pleasure (good) + Not existing: no suffering (good), no pleasures (not bad)", but still asking very good questions in my opinion. It's basically about bringing kids into this world. And I've been hearing all my life "this world is so bad, I don't want to bring kids to it", thinking it's a sort of lazy approach... but now I feel a bit differently. Because I've been thinking about kids so much. This world, the end of times. We don't really understand how bad things are, really. We don't. We really really don't. And how much people are suffering as we speak, how absolutely horrendous everything is and how there is no hope. And on top of it the most simplest of pleasures are also depraved, we have been hijacked by screens and amusing ourselves to death, comparing each other and having major mental issues and things are not becoming any better. It's absolutely clear that the peak of humanity and the human experience has passed. And this book does a really good job telling that. Also about all kinds of suffering that goes on, absolute horrors regarding the human condition. And we have to consider illness too, all the possibilities. And as Schopenhauer said about pleasure: it's only negative suffering. I think about it a lot. Wow, I'm sounding pretty pessimistic now.
But, okay, let's get back to this book. Because by the end it becomes softer, more diplomatic: it finds possibilities for existing to be worth it. It's not easy. But it just might be worth it.
I'm still not sure what to think of this, but this was definitely worth looking into. You can read about the basic issues just by looking up some videos essays on "anti-natalism" on YouTube instead of reading this. Because this might do you permanent damage.
Everybody who has seen me with this book (mostly parents or expecting parents) have asked me if it's worth it, I've been replying by saying "I'm not sure, still reading it" and now that I have read it I still have no idea.
I'd love to be a dad though. -
I would give it a 5 star rating if it only contained David Benatar's half. The second half drags.
-
Both Benatar and Wasserman give the important and difficult topic of procreation the respect and consideration it deserves. For this reason alone, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the topic. I will briefly summarise Wasserman's contribution to the book because Benatar merely rehearses the views of his well known earlier book. Wasserman does a really nice job of summarising and disputing the anti-natalist position. Wasserman argues that although we have no obligation to procreate, procreation is permissible if certain conditions are met, the most important being that the child's life be at least worth living. Wasserman also deals with the non-identity problem in a considered and persuasive way. In bringing somebody into existence we must be able to (at least in principle) justify our decision to the person we create. One way of doing this is citing the net good of their life, however it gets harder to justify bringing them into existence if they are exposed to significant harm or you did so for perverse reasons. Conceptualising the problem as one of justification adds much clarity to the field of procreative ethics.
-
This seemed quite a thorough exploration of both sides of the procreation debate - whether it is right or wrong to create new human beings, given the risk or probability of suffering. It was quite dry, clearly aimed at an academic rather than a popular audience, and probably only worth investing time in if you're someone working in the field.
-
Benatars part was pretty good, Wassermans not so much. The latter kinda failed to give a good argument for reproduction. It feels like he was talking around the question of 'is it wrong to reproduce' instead of actually getting to the point of answering it. I was hoping to seriously challenge my own beliefs on the topic but it failed to do that. The editing could use some work too.
-
The first half of the book consists of a devastating restatement and expansion of Benatar's arguments for antinatalism.
-
Benatar's part has a concise overview of his anti-natalist arguments, including the misanthropic argument which wasn't covered in his Better Never to Have Been nor The Human Predicament. Wasserman's rebuttal is quite weak. Didn't challenge Benatar's central contribution (the asymmetry) at all. I did enjoy his rebuttal to Benatar's quality-of-life argument though, which I've never been quite convinced about myself, despite being an anti-natalist. The last few chapters of Wasserman's part that had little to do with Benatar's arguments were a drag to me.
-
I feel like Wasserman’s way of arguing his side would unintentionally strengthen Benatar’s by proving how weak his position is versus his. It swayed me further to Benatar’s side even when I was done picking apart Benatar’s section. If it were up to only this debate to make up my mind, I’d definitely side with anti-natalism.
-
4 stars are for the first half of the book. I felt like Wasserman didn't really address the main issues raised by Benatar - he just sorta side steps them instead. Of course that could just be my bias since I've been an antinatalist before even learning of the term or reading any of these books.
