Procreation argument and analogy

[davidtorez]

I asked chat gpt this question. Then I asked it to formulate it into a better argument for me. What do you guys think of it? The question is in the screenshot attached
Is it morally justifiable to bring a person into existence, knowing they will suffer, struggle, and die — even if they might find happiness along the way?

To explore this question, consider the following analogy: imagine forcing someone to swim through shark-infested waters to reach an island filled with treasure. Some may succeed, some may die, and none were given the choice to opt out. Would such an act be morally acceptable?
This analogy captures the ethical problem of procreation — the decision to create sentient life without consent, knowing it will be exposed to unavoidable suffering. The argument, grounded in consent, risk, and harm, leads to a powerful conclusion: procreation is morally unjustifiable.

The Analogy
Suppose you push someone into shark-infested waters and tell them:

"If you make it to the island, there's gold worth millions waiting for you. It'll be worth it.
You know:

The waters are dangerous.

Some people will drown, be maimed, or traumatized.

Some will make it and even thank you — but they didn't choose to swim.

This person didn't ask to be there. You made the decision for them, justifying it with the possibility of reward.
The Moral Problem
This act violates several basic ethical principles:

1. Lack of Consent
Consent is a moral cornerstone. Forcing someone into danger without it is unethical.

The person didn't choose the risk, and by the time they're aware of it, it's too late to opt out.

2. Imposition of Risk and Harm
The danger is real. Not everyone makes it. Some suffer horribly.
Even if rewards are possible, risking someone else's life and well-being for a potential benefit is morally wrong, especially when the risk is certain and they had no say in it.

3. Gratitude Doesn't Justify the Act
Survivors who make it to the island and enjoy the gold may feel thankful.

But that doesn't mean it was right to push them in.

Gratitude after survival doesn't retroactively justify non-consensual danger.
The Parallel to Procreation
Now replace the island with life, the sharks with suffering and death, and the gold with happiness or fulfillment.

To be born is to be thrust into existence — a condition that guarantees exposure to pain, loss, anxiety, aging, and death.

Some people might find love, joy, and meaning — others will suffer deeply.

But none of us chose to enter this condition. We were forced into the swim.
The Core Moral Argument
Forcing someone into a high-risk situation without their consent is morally wrong — even if it might lead to pleasure.

Being born exposes a person to significant suffering and risk, without their consent.

Therefore, bringing someone into existence is morally wrong.
Conclusion
If it is morally wrong to force someone to risk their life for treasure without consent, it must also be wrong to bring someone into existence — exposing them to the inescapable harms of conscious life — without their consent.

The swim through life may contain gold, but the waters are filled with sharks.
If you wouldn't push someone in, you shouldn't push someone into existence either.

 

[FuneralCry]

I agree, I see it as so dreadful how this existence was imposed causing all this harm and suffering as a result with no limit as to how much one can be tortured especially as there were never any disadvantages to never suffering at all, I wish I was never forced into this horrific reality more than anything, I'd never wish for the torturous burden of human existence.

 

[davidtorez]

See d

I agree, I see it as so dreadful how this existence was imposed causing all this harm and suffering as a result with no limit as to how much one can be tortured especially as there were never any disadvantages to never suffering at all, I wish I was never forced into this horrific reality more than anything, I'd never wish for the torturous burden of human existence.

Definitely!

 

[hedezev4]

I generally agree with this point of view.

But if there were such a perfect world where people seriously thought about consequences, then such a world wouldn't exist — because no one would reproduce.

And since we do exist, we don't live in that kind of world.

We - and this world - are the result of survivorship bias.

Our brain loves to justify anything that benefits us, so those who benefit from something — for whatever reason — will justify it and come up with lots of arguments for why it's worth pushing people into shark-infested waters.

They might say something like: "Well, at least the water is warm and pleasant. Swimming is healthy, fun, and the sharks keep things exciting. You'll remember it for the rest of your life. Besides, why are you just sitting on the shore? Sharks need to eat too. Other people swim and they're fine. What, you think you're special just because you don't want to swim? Look at me — I swam and I turned out fine. It was the best part of my life, swimming to that island," and so on.

 

[davidtorez]

But we could lessen the amount of people suffering by not procreating and instead perhaps adopting instead . Youre right though, a perfect world without suffering isn't on the horizon anytime soon, but humans will become extinct one day. Until then I will try to preach my prevention is better than cure message