Anti-Natalism

by Ken Coates

  Will and Suffering : The fundamental principle underlying all existence, according to Schopenhauer, is the will-to-life or simply Will. This is not the conscious willing that we think of when we use the word ‘will’. Rather it is a blind, innate urge or force that drives all existing things, animate and inanimate, towards some end or the other. For living things, it means above all the urge to survive and to reproduce and perpetuate the species. This is the basic nature of existence that humans share with all living things and, as Schopenhauer sees it, it involves untold suffering. The similarity with the Buddhist view of existence is striking. The Buddha’s First Noble Truth is that life is suffering. Schopenhauer arrived at his perspective on existence without any knowledge of Buddhism or Brahmanism. Later, when he discovered the Upanishads and the Buddhist literature, he was struck by the common ground between his reflections in this regard and Indian thought, particularly Buddhism ( Schopenhauer 1977, v.i, xiii; v. ii, 371) Schopenhauer was gratified to see his viewpoint corroborated by these two ancient religions, which he believed had confronted the reality of existence without illusions and made liberation from existence as their supreme goal (Schopenhauer 1969, V.ii, 627-9).

  For Schopenhauer pain and suffering are intrinsic to life in a fundamental way. To begin with life literally feeds on life. We see this clearly in the animal world. Animals have to devour other animals, plants and organisms in order to survive. The pain and suffering of life is revealed poignantly in the death agony of the helpless prey struggling in the jaws of its predator. We humans also devour life – plants, fish, birds and other animals – but are mostly unaware of or turn a blind eye to this essential foundation of our existence. We rationalize this act of cannibalism by the pretence that our killing of animals for our nourishment is done humanely or that it is justified since they are a different species from us. This, for Schopenhauer, is mere self-deception or a lack of awareness concerning the immorality and cruelty underlying our existence. It simply means that humans have established their domination over the rest of nature and think that all of nature is simply there to serve their wants and desires (Schopenhauer 1969 v.i, 146-7).

  In drawing our attention to the sufferings of the animal world, inflicted by animals on each other and by humans more systematically, Schopenhauer breaks new ground. Neither Brahmanism nor Buddhism paid any attention to animals but focused entirely on human suffering. Western tradition of thought in general has been even more clearly anthropocentric. As Schopenhauer points out, Christianity assigns humans a privileged position in God’s creation, making them the lord and master as well as the custodian of the world. Indeed so eminent a moral authority as Immanuel Kant considered it appropriate to treat animals as means to our ends. Since they were devoid of reason they were merely ‘things’. Hence Kant declares that ‘man can have no duty to any beings except human’ (Murdoch 1993, 253). Schopenhauer traces the source of Kant’s attitude to Christianity, since ‘Christian morality leaves animals out of account’. Even the great Christian mystic Meister Eckhart writes to the effect that “all creatures are made for the sake of man” and that all “created things become of use to the good man” (254). True, at least one of the ancient Indian religions, namely Jainism, had made non-violence (‘ahimsa’) to all living creatures one of their cardinal moral precepts and adopted strict vegetarianism. Nonetheless Schopenhauer’s philosophical viewpoint, which looks upon the suffering of all living beings and not just those of humans, seems to be unique in drawing our attention to the fact that all living creatures including human beings are by the very nature of their existence involved in killing others or getting killed. Not surprisingly Nietzsche described Schopenhauer as “the only serious moralist of our century” ( 57).

  Apart from the killing of living beings to sustain life, there is also a constant struggle for existence between species and between individuals within species. Conflict over possession and domination is endemic in life. Inflicting pain and suffering on each other is thus intrinsic to living things. The history of humanity is a saga of conflict and struggle – between individuals and groups such as tribes, nations and classes – as reflected in our daily lives and in hundreds of wars, rebellions and revolutions throughout history. Schopenhauer alludes to the unimaginable barbarism and cruelty to which African slaves were subjected to for several hundred years ( Schopenhauer 1970, 138). The suffering inflicted on the native peoples of the Americas by the conquistadores is another of the innumerable examples of the unspeakable cruelty and suffering inflicted on human beings by their fellow-humans. To this man-made evil, stemming from the nature of the will-to-live, we have to add the death and destruction resulting from natural disasters, e.g. floods, cyclones and earthquakes. As Schopenhauer remarks, ‘If the immediate and direct purpose of our life is not suffering then our existence is the most ill-adapted to its purpose in the world’ (41). And although Schopenhauer’s focus is always on the will-to-life and its consequences, natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes also feature as a source of suffering stemming as they do from the Will which animates natural forces. Perhaps this more comprehensive vision is what he has in mind when he writes, ‘If you imagine….the sum total of distress, pain and suffering of every kind (italics added) which the sun shines upon in its course, you will have to admit it would have been much better if the sun had been able to call upon the phenomenon of life as little on the earth as on the moon; and if here as there, the surface were still in a crystalline condition’ (47).

  Preponderance of Pain over Pleasure: Schopenhauer’s emphasis on pain and suffering of existence raises the question of his neglect of the ‘other’ side of life, viz. the pleasures, joys and satisfactions that are also a part of existence. Is there not, then, a trade-off between pain and pleasure, the joys and sorrows of life? This brings us to a complex series of arguments that Schopenhauer advances in defense of his viewpoint. First of all, he maintains that the pain and suffering involved in human existence far exceeds its pleasures. This is, in part, because we take normal well-being and satisfaction for granted and do not feel particularly joyful about it. On the other hand pain and suffering register upon us far more strongly and immediately ( 41-2). For example the fact that I am free of toothache at the moment does not make me feel particularly pleased about it. But as soon as I develop a toothache I begin to feel the resulting pain immediately and forcefully. Such examples could be multiplied. As Schopenhauer puts it ‘we are conscious not of the healthiness of our whole body but only of the little place where the shoe pinches’ (41).

  From the preponderance of the feeling of pain over pleasure Schopenhauer derives the principle of the ‘negativity of well-being and happiness’ and the ‘positivity of pain’ in life. He writes: ‘Hence it arises that we are not properly conscious of the of the blessings and advantages we actually possess, nor do we prize them, but think of them merely as a matter of course, for they gratify us only negatively by restraining suffering. Only when we have lost them do we become sensible of their value; for the want, the privation, the sorrow, is the positive, communicating itself directly to us.’ (Schopenhauer 1977, V.I, 412). This intuition is confirmed by the fact that conventional wisdom is forever reminding us not to forget the good things that we have and to be grateful for our many blessings. Indeed popular Victorian homilies such as ‘I complained that I had no shoes until I met a man who had no legs!’ express this motto, rather crudely in this case, but quite well.

  Schopenhauer argues that our so-called pleasures are often no more than the relief of some want or deficiency which is a form of pain. Thus eating and drinking may be pleasurable but basically they satisfy hunger or thirst. Thus it is more a mitigation of pain rather than a gain of pleasure as such. Furthermore, pleasure is usually short-lived. Gratification ends the pleasure and we are then beset by other wants and desires. For ‘the will, of which human life, like every phenomenon, is the objectification, is a striving without aim or end’ (414). Hence it is impossible to attain last
ing satisfaction. Moreover the gratification of our wish or desire rarely matches our expectation and thus often brings disappointment in its train (411-3).

  However one exception to this is aesthetic pleasure. It is the only kind of pleasure that Schopenhauer finds unrelated to willing and striving. It is in the pure contemplation of nature, e.g. a sunset, or in the presence of artistic creations such as painting and music that we are temporarily released from our slavery to the will, and the beautiful becomes truly pleasurable. However this pleasure is available to only a few. As Schopenhauer explains: ‘For that which we might otherwise call the most beautiful part of life, its purest joy, if it were only because it lifts us out of real existence and transforms us into disinterested spectators of it – that is pure knowledge, which is foreign to all willing, the pleasure of the beautiful, the true delight in art – this is granted only to a very few, because it demands rare talents, and to these few only as a passing dream’ (405). For these moments do not last long and soon willing and striving resumes its hold on us. In any case the vast majority of people do not have the capacity to enjoy intellectual pleasures. Schopenhauer does not consider popular forms of entertainment and pastimes as a substitute for aesthetic pleasures. Here he shows himself to be an elitist unwilling to grant the masses reprieve from willing and absorption into the spectacle before them, e.g. at a sporting event, the circus or music-hall, in a manner paralleling the appreciation of arts (405-6). Indeed he believes that sports, card playing and similar pastimes are simply a means to stave off boredom.

  Boredom: If willing and striving form one pole of our existence the other is boredom or ennui. This is something that affects the higher animals and of course humans in particular. ‘Ennui’, says Schopenhauer, ‘is by no means an evil to be lightly esteemed’. For ‘as soon as want and suffering permit rest to a man, ennui is at once so near that he necessarily requires diversion. The striving after existence is what occupies all living things and maintains them in motion. But when existence is assured, then they know not what to do with it; thus the second thing that sets them in motion is the effort to get free from the burden of existence, to make it cease to be felt, “to kill time”, i.e. escape from ennui’ (404). Indeed for Schopenhauer, this is ‘‘a consequence of the fact that life has no genuine intrinsic worth , but is kept in motion merely by want and illusion. But as soon as this comes to a standstill, the utter barrenness and emptiness of existence becomes apparent.” (quoted in Foster 1999, 216). This may be putting it too strongly but undoubtedly the consciousness of our existence wears heavily on us if we are not engaged in some physical or mental activity. Hence, finds Schopenhauer, public authorities are everywhere conscious of this evil and make every effort to provide diversions and entertainments to occupy the multitude (Schopenhauer 1977, v. I, 404). Clearly the experience of boredom is a price we have to pay for the fact of our self-consciousness including the awareness of time and our suspension in it.

  Humans vs. Animals: Humans suffer more than other animals for a number of reasons. Animals have few needs and when these are met they are contented. Moreover they live in the present and have no sense of time - no sense of the past or the future and above all no anticipation of death. Not so with man. First, our desires and wants are far greater and therefore our disappointments are keener. Whilst we are capable of enjoying many more pleasures than the animals – ranging from simple conversation and laughter to refined aesthetic pleasures - we are also far more sensitive to pain. We not only suffer life’s evils but unlike animals are conscious of them as such and suffer doubly on that account. Most importantly perhaps it is our consciousness of temporality that makes us suffer the anxieties and fears of accidents, illnesses and the knowledge of our eventual decay and death. The idea of our disappearance from the world as unique individuals is a matter of great anguish and makes us look for all kinds of means of ‘ensuring’ our immortality. In the main it is religious beliefs that cater to this need. As a professed atheist Schopenhauer finds these and many other aspects of religion as mere fables and fairy tales , a means of escaping the truth about existence including our utter annihilation as individuals by death.

  The terrors of existence haunt humans alone, not plants and animals. Moreover death brings us face to face with the vanity of existence. ‘Time and that perishability of all things existing in time that time itself brings about Is simply the form under which the will to live … reveals to itself the vanity of its striving’. (Schopenhauer 1970, 51). Indeed that ‘the most perfect manifestation of the will to live represented by the human organism, with its incomparably ingenious and complicated machinery, must crumble to dust and its whole essence and all its striving be palpably given over at last to annihilation – this is nature’s unambiguous declaration that all the striving of this will is essentially vain.’ (54).

  Death and the transitoriness of all things lead humans to question the very nature of their existence. Thus ‘To our amazement we suddenly exist, after having for millennia not existed; in a short while we will again not exist, also for countless millennia’( 51). This does not make sense for it makes our birth as well as our death, in short life itself, an entirely contingent affair. It therefore raises the question what is it all about. With all the sufferings that human beings have to undergo, with all the effort that they have to expend in the struggle for survival, the cruelty and injustices that they sees all around them and with death as the inevitable end the pointlessness of existence to which they are called, and programmed to continue via reproduction, seems nothing short of a monstrosity. Of course ‘the futility and fruitlessness of the struggle of the whole phenomenon (of existence) are more readily grasped in the simple and easily observable life of animals’ (Schopenhauer 1969, v.II, 354). The effort and ingenuity they expend in survival and reproduction ‘contrast clearly with the absence of any lasting final aim’ (354). And the same is true of humans. Despite the elaborate superstructure of civilization that they have built around life the basis of their existence remains the same as that of other animals. It consists of maintaining one’s existence and reproducing the species. We are as much nature’s dupes as are other living creatures with however one difference. We have the possibility of denying the will-to-live which keeps us in bondage to nature and subjects us to the futility of existence and its continuation through reproduction.

  The Ascendancy of Evil over Good: We should note that Schopenhauer does not deny the presence of good beside evil in human existence. However, for him no amount of good can wipe off the presence of evil in the world. “It is quite superfluous to dispute’, says Schopenhauer, “whether there is more good or evil in the world, for the mere existence of evil decides the matter, since evil can never be wiped off … by the good that exists along with it or after it” (quoted in Janaway 1999a, 332). Clearly this involves a moral judgment. Instead of a utilitarian calculus of good and evil, Schopenhauer here takes an absolutist ethical standpoint. However he is not consistent for he also argues that if we could draw up a list of various kinds of sufferings that a person could be subjected to – as we know from history and of everyday happenings around us - and compare it with all the possible pleasure and happiness that he might receive from life, again realistically, there can be little doubt about how the balance would tilt. In some ways Schopenhauer’s argument here is similar to that of the preponderance of pain over pleasure as we saw above. We appreciate the good that exists in the world, e.g. genuine compassion for others, acts of kindness, care and concern for the weak and vulnerable, altruism as opposed to egoism. However the intensity and the trauma involved in murder, rape, torture, wanton acts of cruelty cannot be matched by acts of goodness which scarcely register with the same force.

  In his judgment of the world as a whole Schopenhauer finds the overwhelming preponderance of evil, which is fundamental to existence, only slightly mitigated by the good which is a marginal and subsidiary element of human life. Hence concludes Schopenhauer, ‘Life is a business, whose retu
rns are far from covering the cost’ (Schopenhauer 1969 v.II, 353). Schopenhauer tends to repeat statements, such as ‘the game is not worth the candle’ which betokens a crude utilitarianism, a cost-benefit approach to life. In fact the overall impression conveyed by his philosophy is that of a moral indictment and a metaphysical rejection of the world, based on the nature of the blind will underlying existence. And it is not surprising that in spite of his uncompromising atheism there is an evident streak of a religious perspective on life. This is evident from his use of the vocabulary of ‘sin’, ‘redemption’, ‘salvation’ and the like. Schopenhauer finds three of the world religions, viz. Brahmanism, Buddhism, and New Testament Christianity, sympathetic to his view of life. What is common to these and what they share with his world-view is ‘pessimism’, i.e. a negative view of worldly existence, and the search for salvation from it. By contrast he finds Judaism and Islam to be ‘optimistic’ religions (605, 623). They exalt earthly existence, affirm the will-to-live and thus perpetuate the pain, suffering and misery of existence. Indeed he finds all forms of optimistic doctrines pernicious and ‘wicked’ in that they turn a blind eye to the sufferings of all living beings and perpetuate the illusion of life as ‘good’(Schopenhauer 1969 V. I, 325-6 )

  Schopenhauer believes that religions communicate what they hold to be the truth about existence in the form of myths and fables which the masses can understand. Philosophy, on the other hand, presents its view of existence in an abstract and conceptual manner which is only comprehensible to a small minority of educated people. Nonetheless they are but two forms in which the metaphysics of existence is expressed. Schopenhauer offers an ingenious interpretation of Christianity in line with his own philosophical viewpoint. For him ‘The doctrine of original sin (affirmation of the will) and salvation (denial of the will) is really the great truth which constitutes the kernel of Christianity’ ( 405). In the Fall of Adam Christianity symbolizes man’s affirmation of the will-to-live. His sin bequeathed to us manifests itself in time through the bond of generation, causing us all to partake of suffering and eternal death. On the other hand Christ, God become man, symbolizes salvation through the denial of the will.