One of the most common and basic anti-natalist arguments is that reproduction is morally wrong because it is impossible to get the consent of the person who was created, especially when life is necessarily full of unavoidable harms, as well as innumerable risks of a huge variety of serious harms, to which consent cannot be obtained in advance by the created person.
Usually the argument is phrased more or less like this:
Harming someone else is morally justified only if the harmed person has given his explicit consent, or in cases where explicit consent is not possible but the harm is undoubtedly in the interest of the harmed person since refraining from inflicting the harm will cause greater harm to that person. Some also add the case of harming without consent for the purpose of punishment as a case in which causing harm is justified.
Since the creation of people exposes them to harms without their explicit consent, and without these harms being in the interest of the created people, for example because otherwise the harm to them would be greater (since before someone exists s/he cannot be harmed by anything and has no interests), and it is certainly not the case that the harm is a punishment for some crime, reproduction is not morally justified.
There is no one who has to exist before s/he existed, and there is no one who literally has to create someone. It is never necessary to create someone. But it is always necessary that when you create someone, you expose them to harm without getting consent beforehand. And it is forbidden to cause harm to someone without the consent of that person, certainly when it is not necessary.
Life is full of frustrations, pains, difficulties, loss, disappointments, regrets, stress, anxieties, hurting others, and death. No one gave their consent in advance to any of these. Despite this, and contrary to the prevailing liberal position that we should not impose harms on others or put them at risk of harm, people create people and thus expose them to the inherent harms of life without consent. To put someone in a situation where certain harms are certain and additional harms, some of which may be particularly severe, are always a possibility, without consent, is a violation of a very fundamental ethical position. And this violation exists in every case of reproduction, regardless of the quality of life of the created person.
Since the creation of a person is never and cannot be an action that prevents greater harm (because before the creation of a person there is no one who can be harmed by something), it cannot be morally justified in terms of prior consent.
The meaning of the consent argument is not that one should never act without consent. But the only cases in which it is permissible to act without consent are those in which the purpose of the action is to prevent greater harm to a person who for some reason cannot give consent to that action. For example, cases where there is not enough time to ask for and receive consent before the harm is caused, such as a person crossing the road without noticing that a vehicle is speeding towards them and the only way to prevent them from being run over is to push or pull them away. Despite the risk that as a result of our action we will cause another person some kind of harm without consent (if as a result of the push they fall on their hand and break it for example), this action is justified because it was done in order to prevent greater harm to that person (if the car hits that person and breaks dozens of bones). Or cases where the person is not in a position to give consent, for example a person who lost consciousness after a huge rock fell on her/his foot and the only way to get out is to cut off part of the foot. Both cases are harm in order to prevent greater harm without consent and are therefore justified. On the other hand, we will not justify causing harm without consent in order to benefit someone, for example making someone lose consciousness and forcing plastic surgery on them is morally wrong even if the surgery is successful and the person is satisfied with the result. Ignoring consent is morally acceptable only when it cannot be obtained and when the action in question will prevent greater harm.
This premise is based on another moral assumption, which is that we do not have a moral obligation to do good to people, but we do have a moral obligation not to harm people. We do not have a moral obligation to make people happy at every opportunity, but we do have an obligation not to harm people, and always. If someone had an opportunity to make someone happy without that person’s knowledge and s/he avoided it, we will not think that s/he committed any moral offense or violated a moral rule. On the other hand, we will think that way about someone who harmed someone, or even refrained from preventing someone else from being harmed by something. Not only do we not view harm and pleasure symmetrically, we are convinced that there is a huge difference between the moral importance of harm versus pleasure. And this is true both in terms of our moral attitude, that is, how we think it is appropriate to treat others, and in terms of our personal preferences. It is hard to believe that there is anyone who is willing to go through 5 minutes of the most horrible torture imaginable in exchange for 5 minutes of the greatest pleasure imaginable, or even an hour of it, and in fact even much more. Would you be willing to endure torture for an hour in order to experience for a whole day the thing that pleases you the most? Highly unlikely.
We will not accept ignoring a prior non-consent in any other situation, even if it is only for one factor. For example, even if we are completely convinced that one change in a person’s trait, appearance, place of residence, relationship, or workplace will be in that person’s best interest, even if we do not know what the person’s position is regarding the change, it would be morally wrong to force this change on that person. It is true that acting against a person’s will is not the same as acting without permission, but it is likely that our initial intuition would be that a person should be asked before taking actions that affect their life even if it is in their best interest. And if for some reason it is impossible to ask, the assumption should be that we refrain from acting, not that we ignore the fact that consent was not obtained.
Some argue that consent is not at all a relevant issue in the case of creating people since it is not possible to get consent in advance from someone who has not yet been created. But the fact that prior consent cannot be given in the case of creating people certainly does not allow people to do what they want in matters of reproduction, but if anything, on the contrary. The fact that it is not possible to obtain prior consent is evidence of the flaws in the decision to reproduce. Isn’t the fact that consent cannot be given at all actually an admission that it is a morally wrong action in principle?
The fact that no one chose to be created does not make the creation of others something that we should accept with peace of mind. If anything, it is the other way around. This is a very disturbing fact that we will not accept in any other context. In any other context, we will not accept the situation that the most important decision regarding someone will be made for that someone by others without that someone’s consent.
Probably only because it is so accepted and normal in human society since time immemorial, and only because there is no other possibility to procreate, we take it for granted that the most critical decision in a person’s life is not made by that person but is made for that person and without her/his consent, and this is of course the fact of his existence itself. But we must not accept this situation for granted and as morally acceptable.
Some argue that while it is true that consent cannot be obtained in advance, it is possible to assume consent since most people are satisfied with their lives and therefore actually provide consent in retrospect. But there is no way to assume about someone who does not yet exist that s/he will retrospectively agree to her/his creation and the harms accompanying her/his existence. It is still wrong in principle even if a person is satisfied with the decision to create her/him, since it is still exposing someone to unnecessary harm without prior consent and without the avoidance of creating that person being some kind of harm to that person in some way, since as mentioned, before a person is created there is no one who wants to be created, that it is in her/his interest to be created, or s/he will be harmed if s/he is not created. There is no one before someone is created and therefore there is no one who will be harmed by the decision not to create them.
But perhaps more important than the moral offense at the principle level regarding retrospective consent, is the actual moral offense in the case of those who will not be satisfied with the decision to create them, and there will always be such. After all, reproduction does not work in such a way that only those who will agree retrospectively to their creation which was done without their prior consent, are created, or only those whose lives will be good and worthy from their point of view, but reproduction creates everyone. Everyone was created without consent and without choosing to be created or choosing any of their opening conditions, their physical characteristics, their environment, their parents, their society, their country, their timing, their genetic makeup, their body, their personality tendencies, etc. Not only is it a morally wrong idea which is completely contrary in principle to other common ideas about freedom of choice and individuality, it is also very wrong because it condemns those who will not be satisfied with the fact of their existence and their lives, to a misery which they did not choose and did not agree to. In other words, the argument of retrospective consent has another side to it and that is all those who are not satisfied with their lives and thereby express disapproval of the decision to create them. If those who are satisfied with their lives thereby express retroactive consent and therefore apparently, at least according to the arguments against it, contradict the argument of consent, then those who are not satisfied with their lives and regret the decision to create them, express opposition or disagreement with the decision to create them.
Therefore, even if we accept the idea of consent in retrospect with all its problems, it is definitely not true that all people provide this type of consent.
Even in cases of existing people, we don’t think that it is necessary to go with the majority. For example, when a majority of a certain group wants to do something on the assumption that it will bring them pleasure, and a minority of them opposes it on the assumption that it will cause them suffering, we will not think that it is necessary to force the minority to do something against their will because this is the will of the majority. In fact, we are likely to think that it would be morally wrong to impose something on a certain group, even if it is in a numerical minority, just because that is the will of the majority. And it is related to our very strong intuition that preventing harm is much more important than preventing pleasure.
And this must be the case in relation to creating people, since even if the absolute majority of people would be satisfied with their lives, none of them would be harmed by not being created, and on the other hand, even if the group of people who would be dissatisfied with their lives would be a very small numerical minority, it would certainly be harmed if it did exist. We have one case in which there will be certain harm to one group that neither consents in advance nor gives consent retrospectively, as a necessary outcome of the creation of the satisfied group, and a second case in which no one exists and no one is harmed by not existing, no one misses existence, and no one is deprived of anything. This should not be a moral dilemma at all.
The only way there will be those who are satisfied with their lives is that there will also be those who are not satisfied with their lives, therefore there is necessarily a dimension of sacrifice in supporting reproduction. On the other hand, if we decide not to create people, none of the group that would have been satisfied if we had created them will be harmed by the fact that this did not happen, since none of them will ever exist, and there will not be a dissatisfied group that did not give any consent, neither in advance nor in retrospect.
Therefore, it is clearly necessary to assume that there will be those who will not agree and therefore to prevent harm to them by avoiding the creation of people, and not to assume that everyone will agree and thereby cause harm to those who do not agree.
It is the right thing to do also in light of the fact that no one really has the possibility to regret being created. Is expressing consent to existence even relevant after it has already occurred? Of course not, because it is impossible to cancel existence. You can stop the continuation of existence but you can’t cancel it. It is not possible to undo all the suffering caused to a person who does not agree to experience everything imposed on her/him and seeks to undo it. It is also impossible to undo all the harm to everyone around that person in the event that the person decides to end her/his existence. Therefore it is not possible to cancel the effect of existence but only to stop the continuation of existence. And it is also impossible to cancel or resist all the characteristics imposed on a person. No one can retroactively resist genetic diseases or addictive tendencies or any mental disorder after it already exists. If someone cannot object to a certain situation imposed upon her/him after it has already happened, in what sense can s/he consent to other situations imposed upon her/him after they have already occurred? Existence is one-way and therefore cannot be opposed retroactively. And if you can’t object retroactively, you also can’t agree retroactively. Retroactive consent is meaningless because there is no alternative to existence. There is no possibility of non-existence after there is already existence. There is only the possibility of stopping the continuation of existence, and it is a very complicated, frightening possibility, which goes against the natural tendencies of people, dangerous if it does not succeed, and very painful for others, but there is no possibility of canceling existence. People cannot retroactively undo all the suffering they experienced in existence, or receive compensation for it, or make it somehow justified, or prevent harm to anyone who cares about them, once they cease to exist. Existence is an irreversible decision. You can only prevent the continuation of existence, but you cannot go back, you cannot prevent all the effects and consequences of existence after it has already been decided.
To avoid the creation of a person will not harm anyone who is not created. On the other hand, creating a miserable person who does not agree to the harms s/he has to experience during her/his life is definitely causing harm. And there is no justification for this harm, no possibility of compensation or a way out without further harm.
And it is never possible to know or guarantee that the person who will be created will not be unhappy. For this reason, among others, it is always wrong to create people.
Another unsuccessful attempt at sophistry is to argue that if consent is so important why not ask for someone’s consent not to be created. No one gave their consent to be created but also not to not be created they say. It’s just that there is a very dramatic difference between the case where there is no one to ask for consent but there is going to be one if people create someone, compared to the case where they don’t create a person and then there will never be anyone relevant to ask for consent. In the case of creating a person, someone who must give consent for what is done to her/him is created. In the case that someone is not created, there is never anyone who has to give consent to not being created. Whoever is created is affected by the decision to create her/him and therefore consent must be given, but whoever is not created will never exist and therefore will never be in a position to agree to what is done to her/him because nothing was ever done to her/him because s/he never existed. We can talk about someone who was never created only because language allows us to, but there is really no one to talk about. Avoiding the creation of a person creates a situation where there is never anyone who has to agree to anything, that is as opposed to the creation of a person, who although as in the case of prevention, at the time of the decision there is no one to ask for consent, there will be someone when the action is realized.
There is no need to ask for consent not to create someone because there is no such person, there was not and will not be anyone from whom consent can be asked and there are no harms that this someone has to agree to.
Consent is required in the case of creating a person only, because only in the case of creating a person is there a person who needs to agree to the harms s/he will experience when s/he is created. In the case where it is decided not to create a person, there is no harm that a person will experience because s/he was not created and there is no person who can agree since such a person was not created.
You cannot force non-existence on someone because non-existence is by definition a state where there is nothing and no one. Only existence can be forced and indeed this is what happens in every human creation because it is always without consent.
And one last but very important point in relation to consent is the harm to others. Not only is it impossible to get the consent of the one who was created to be created and experience the injuries that will occur during his life, there is also no way to get the consent of anyone who will be harmed by the person who will be created. And every person harms many people during his life. How is it possible to justify the harms, harms that there is no doubt that consent was never given in any way regarding any of them, to anyone the created person will harm over the course of his entire life?