1. Benatar, David. “The Misanthropic Argument for Anti-Natalism.” 2015.
Premise 1: We have an obligation to not contribute to species that cause extreme suffering and destruction.
Premise 2: Humans cause extreme suffering and destruction.
Conclusion: We have an obligation to not create any more humans.
2. Krishnamurty’s Objection
2A: The personal value put on having a transformative experience outweighs the negative value the resulting child will have on a the rest of the world.
2B: People also choose to have a child out of obligation to their culture. A person has a greater obligation to their culture than they do to the environment and to humanity at large.
3. Krishnamurty’s Argument
2A: Some people place a lot of value on having new experiences, regardless of the actual results of the experience. Therefore, people can make rational decisions to have children is they consider that transformative experience positive in and of itself. This positive value outweighs the negative value that the new child might bring, whether that is contributing an infinitesimal amount of CO2 into the atmosphere or just by making the parent’s life miserable.
2B: People will sometimes have children because they feel like they are obligated to make sure their culture lives on, in this case there is no personal value put on having a child. The value is instead in fulfilling an obligation to the people or culture the parent holds close. The parent in this situation has a greater obligation to their culture than they do to all of humanity, so they are not morally wrong for having children.
4. Benatar's Defense
4A: Human beings cause more damage to the world around us than any other species of animal alive, ignoring this in favor of your own personal fulfilment, by having a child, is selfish. This kind of selfishness supports his premise that humans cause terrible suffering, since selfishness leads to the kind of disregard that allows cruelty to happen.
4B: People do not have any more of an obligation to their cultures or communities than they do the state of the world. The harm done by people of all cultures is unjustifiable and cannot be allowed to continue. The sentimental value placed on cultures is not enough to justify the vast amounts of destruction done by people, so this is not an excuse to create more people.
5. Adjudication
I think that in this disagreement, Benatar is probably right. Even though I don’t agree with his views of anti-natalism, his argument is perfectly logical and very hard to find flaws in. Krishnamurty’s arguments just don’t hold up against his and don’t provide any good reasons to question his conclusion. Benatar is making a moral argument, based on our (generally agreed on) obligation to not cause suffering, and Krishnamurty is arguing about the rationality of deciding to have children, so it’s difficult to find the ways that their arguments are applicable to each other. I think that the only way to solve this dispute is to answer this: is it possible to make a rational decision to go against your own, strongly held, moral beliefs?