Frankfurt School

Why is it that the Frankfurt School fell prey of the pronatal context of delusion. Adorno for one saw no chance for change and coined the often quoted phrase: the whole (of society) is wrong. Why didn’t he make a case for antinatalism?


Perhaps more than anything else, contact with people suffering from dementia proves the validity of Plato’s claim according to which we are souls incarcerated in a body.

You abnegate those people’s right to exist?

What I deny is people’s supposed ethical entitlement to act in such a way that new people begin to exist – to act in such a way that one more brain constitutes one more (self-)consciousness.


The ethical value of omissions is widely underestimated. This may have to do with the fact that we take it for granted or as an ethical standard setting that one must not become active in such a way that other people be harmed. We praise people who do something for the benefit of existing other people. Most of us, however, would not praise someone who had decided to not procreate or someone who had revised a former decision to procreate. All this in spite of the fact that a decision to not procreate is an omission which goes along with there being at least one person less who would see her pets, friends, relatives or parents die before the person herself would go through the experience of declining health and dying (to mention just a few bad things).


Antinatalism is a moral theory that has  two aims. One aim is utopian: mankind’s phasing out by an all-embracing and voluntary abstention from procreation. Another aim is very realistic: To address people in such a way that they decide not to procreate or revise their pronatal decisions. Most people assume the fate and worth of antinatalism as a moral theory hinges on its utopian aim.