Materialism and the Moral Obligation of Anti-Natalism

[prodigalson2011]

I would like to open up discussion on a question of the moral obligations inherent in a secular worldview, or at least one that does not dismiss the question of morality. For the sake of this argument, we will assume that there is:
a) no objective meaning to life; and specifically, no afterlife
b) an objective moral order

Given these two premises, it seems to me that the only morally responsible position for someone who embraces such a philosophy is anti-natalism. For those unfamiliar, anti-natalism is essentially a philosophy of voluntary extinction. It holds that since life has no greater meaning and inevitably gives rise to much needless suffering, reproduction is essentially evil.

While I disagree that there can be an objective moral order in the absence of an objective meaning, I fail to see how anyone can refute the anti-natalist argument from a materialistic perspective. Discuss.

 

[insideitall]

does my response have to be at least 2 pages double spaced, with 1 inch margins and 12 point times new roman?

first, since religion is just a particular set of beliefs, a “secular worldview” is just another way of saying an atheistic or nontheistic religion.

second, regardless of whatever your preferred brand of religion is, morality is overwhelmingly objective. moral relativism tries to pretend that it is entirely subjective.

this leads to the question: if morality is objective, where did it come from, and why was it created? objectivity means the rules transcend us, so it is illogical to assert that humans created them. I agree that it is not possible for an objective moral order to exist while an objective meaning to life does not. if there is no meaning to our existence, there is no right and wrong.

for someone who believes suffering is unnecessary and to be avoided, it makes complete sense for them to encourage people to refrain from having children. I’ve met many people like that.

I’m not really sure what your point is, though.

 

[prodigalson2011]

does my response have to be at least 2 pages double spaced, with 1 inch margins and 12 point times new roman?

first, since religion is just a particular set of beliefs, a “secular worldview” is just another way of saying an atheistic or nontheistic religion.

second, regardless of whatever your preferred brand of religion is, morality is overwhelmingly objective. moral relativism tries to pretend that it is entirely subjective.

this leads to the question: if morality is objective, where did it come from, and why was it created? objectivity means the rules transcend us, so it is illogical to assert that humans created them. I agree that it is not possible for an objective moral order to exist while an objective meaning to life does not. if there is no meaning to our existence, there is no right and wrong.

for someone who believes suffering is unnecessary and to be avoided, it makes complete sense for them to encourage people to refrain from having children. I’ve met many people like that.

I’m not really sure what your point is, though.

I’m sorry, I have worded my OP very carefully to avoid transgressing the forum rules. I’ll try to paraphrase a bit more bluntly: this thread is intended to counter the argument of religion as an evil. It is a very popular contention in the secular world that raising a child in a religion is evil. I contend that it is evil to raise them without one.

Further, I was suggesting that if we are indeed a product of chance with no greater significance than our biological functions, the only honorable thing to do is let ourselves die out. The implication here is that a society that is “good without God” is no society at all. I was trying to be a bit more subtle than that, but there you have it. Let the flaming begin!