Add tags to anti-natalism article

_posts/2019-05-16-anti-natalism.md

@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 ---
 layout: post
 title: "The Moral Bankruptcy of Giving Birth"
-image: anti-natalism.png 
+image: anti-natalism.png
+tags: [wona, column]
 category: editorial
 excerpt: "Anti-natalism: The moral/philosophical standpoint posits that it is morally impermissible to procreate and give birth"
 author: "Sudhang Varshney, Surya Raman"
@@ -13,7 +14,7 @@ author: "Sudhang Varshney, Surya Raman"
 
 The author of the critically acclaimed study in philosophy “The World as Will and Representation” speaks here of the anti-natalist stand. **This moral/philosophical standpoint posits that it is morally impermissible to procreate and give birth.** This editorial aims neither to criticise nor condone this philosophy, but to clear its nebulous representation that plagues popular media.
 
-A tranquil, almost languid warmth, gushes through our innards at the mention of life -- a silent agreement to the fact that it has a certain inherent value that is enough to warrant its sacredness. This notion is fortified by how religion -- the invisible thread of beliefs that dictates our moral compass -- generally places life at an olympian pedestal and consecrates it as a divine creation that mankind is unqualified to take in its own hands. This bleeds into the laws that shape the tramlines of how an ideal citizen should behave within society, a few demonstrative examples being the debate around euthanasia, capital punishment, abortion et cetera. The sanctity of an inalienable right to life, the ramifications of violating that right and the apotheosis of the human spirit have been indoctrinated into us by a multitude of factors that function similarly. Murdering is the ultimate sin, loss of life is a catastrophe. Mothers are revered as life-givers and the act of childbirth is the ultimate purpose that provides completeness to an individual's stay in the cosmos. 
+A tranquil, almost languid warmth, gushes through our innards at the mention of life -- a silent agreement to the fact that it has a certain inherent value that is enough to warrant its sacredness. This notion is fortified by how religion -- the invisible thread of beliefs that dictates our moral compass -- generally places life at an olympian pedestal and consecrates it as a divine creation that mankind is unqualified to take in its own hands. This bleeds into the laws that shape the tramlines of how an ideal citizen should behave within society, a few demonstrative examples being the debate around euthanasia, capital punishment, abortion et cetera. The sanctity of an inalienable right to life, the ramifications of violating that right and the apotheosis of the human spirit have been indoctrinated into us by a multitude of factors that function similarly. Murdering is the ultimate sin, loss of life is a catastrophe. Mothers are revered as life-givers and the act of childbirth is the ultimate purpose that provides completeness to an individual's stay in the cosmos.
 
 Given how it has become instinctive to buy into this belief, it becomes imperative to take a moment to ask ourselves **‘WHY?’.**  David Benatar voices:-
 
@@ -35,11 +36,11 @@ Those espousing this idea generally invoke the ethical theory of negative utilit
 
 3) Let’s here assume the absolute best of case 3. Jeff is born with a jawline that will cut through stone. He learns all languages across all species before he is in kindergarten and proceeds to amuse himself by creating one of his own. He has never not been euphoric: lady luck is his accomplice and all of the metaphoric oceans between him and his desires part to his whim. He looks like a million bucks even after stuffing his 80kg muscular frame with a tub of nutella that is processed immaculately by his ungodly metabolism. We don’t like this Jeff.
 
-**Case 1** is problematic and it seems morally incongruous to force this situation on someone- It is wrong to create someone so that they can try to make their life bearable by struggling against the difficult and oppressive situation we place them in. It seems more reasonable simply not to put them in the situation to which they will have to react, when its results are always uncertain. 
+**Case 1** is problematic and it seems morally incongruous to force this situation on someone- It is wrong to create someone so that they can try to make their life bearable by struggling against the difficult and oppressive situation we place them in. It seems more reasonable simply not to put them in the situation to which they will have to react, when its results are always uncertain.
 
 **Case 3** on the face of it feels like a desirable situation, as someone is leading a fulfilling and joyous life, and by refraining from procreation we preclude someone's pleasure. Therein lies the catch: **the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.** If there isn’t a 5-year old to snatch an ice-cream sandwich from, nobody goes home crying. Case 4 doesn’t have a Jeff for which the absence of this happiness is a deprivation and hence, the anti-natalist stand doesn’t suffer from the aforementioned quandary.
 
-**Case 2** doesn’t have our protagonist Jake, because he is but the thought-child of hypothetical anti-natalist parents. Nobody has to suffer. 
+**Case 2** doesn’t have our protagonist Jake, because he is but the thought-child of hypothetical anti-natalist parents. Nobody has to suffer.
 
 Hence, if we look across the first column in a world with Jeff, the first situation is terribly abhorrent while the second isn’t a moral necessity. That is, **we have a moral obligation to refrain from creating unhappy people, and we have no moral impetus to generate happy ones.**
 
@@ -53,8 +54,8 @@ If one does not desist from having children, one can hardly expect one's descend
 
 _A gentle reminder from the authors is necessary here that none of this amounts to rampant suicide, genocide and murder for the very reason that the arguments made are on the morality of giving birth, and not the morality of choosing to continue one’s existence._
 
-**The natural course of the anti-natalist utopia will be rapid extinction of the human race.** In the cosmic scale of things, humans are a hairy enclosure of a soup of organs and gooey innards just like the diabolical rat that your mom calls a ‘shaitan’. Our species’ termination can’t be objectively justified to be a bad thing. All of the importance we attach to life is a belief that we have agreed to hold, and it isn't possible to either prove or disprove it. 
+**The natural course of the anti-natalist utopia will be rapid extinction of the human race.** In the cosmic scale of things, humans are a hairy enclosure of a soup of organs and gooey innards just like the diabolical rat that your mom calls a ‘shaitan’. Our species’ termination can’t be objectively justified to be a bad thing. All of the importance we attach to life is a belief that we have agreed to hold, and it isn't possible to either prove or disprove it.
 
 However , from the vantage point of an exoplanet-inhabiting green sentient sludge, humans have wrecked nature and led to the extinction of millions of species. After having been abused by mankind with reckless abandon for a morbidly long time, the Earth could really use a divorce.
 
-But there’s a saving grace, albeit not an absolving one. Society is rife with weird notions of morality. A person spending 50 lakhs on a luxury car ( which he doesn’t need to subsist) instead of channeling funds to saving hundreds of children who die of starvation is perfectly acceptable. That is to say, at the end of it all, it seems that it’s best to trust our inner conscience when taking calls on the morality of an action. If birthing a mini-them is someone’s jam, the anti-natalist is no one to whine. 
+But there’s a saving grace, albeit not an absolving one. Society is rife with weird notions of morality. A person spending 50 lakhs on a luxury car ( which he doesn’t need to subsist) instead of channeling funds to saving hundreds of children who die of starvation is perfectly acceptable. That is to say, at the end of it all, it seems that it’s best to trust our inner conscience when taking calls on the morality of an action. If birthing a mini-them is someone’s jam, the anti-natalist is no one to whine.