The Paradox of Sentient Life as an Irrational Consequence of Pronatalist Ethics

Bibliographic Data

ID21598250
AuthorsKonrad Szocik (0000-0002-7262-3915, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, corresponding author)
Year2025
Volume34
Issue4
Pages663-670
Publication date2025-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0963-1801 • E-ISSN: 1469-2147
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0963180126100176
PMID42011104
OpenAlexW7155082976
LanguageEN
References cited11

The ethically reflective assessment of life reveals a paradox. On the one hand, many people regard life as one of the highest values and celebrate each new life. On the other hand, every sentient life is inevitably exposed to suffering. Why, then, do we usually consider sentient life worth starting, despite the fact that, apart from a relatively small group of antinatalists, this judgment is rarely questioned? In this article, I argue that sentience is not an advantage but a disadvantage because its central negative consequence is unavoidable suffering for every sentient being. I further argue that bioethics and healthcare ethics should take antinatalist intuitions more seriously in order to challenge pronatalist assumptions that normalize procreation and, in doing so, magnify eradicable suffering

Bioethics · Consequentialism · Disadvantage · Irrational number · Personhood · Sentience · Value of life · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health · Organ Donation and Transplantation

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access