Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Raphael Samuel

Raphael Elkan Samuel (26 December 1934 – 9 December 1996) was a British Marxist historian and author best known for founding the History Workshop movement, which advanced "history from below" as a method to center the experiences and agency of ordinary people, particularly the working classes, in historical analysis over elite narratives.^[1]^[2] Born in London to Jewish parents, Samuel studied at Balliol College, Oxford, and the London School of Economics, where he engaged with New Left politics before establishing the History Workshop in 1967 as an annual conference and later a journal that democratized historical practice through participatory research, oral testimonies, and cultural artifacts.^[3]^[4] His scholarship, including works like Theatre of the World and editorship of series on British radical traditions, integrated Marxist materialism with ethnographic and interdisciplinary approaches, influencing social history while critiquing academic detachment from public life.^[2] Samuel's emphasis on history as an activist craft, rather than a purely scholarly pursuit, earned praise for revitalizing the field but also reflected tensions between ideological commitment and empirical rigor in mid-20th-century historiography.^[5]^[6]

Early Life and Background

Family and Upbringing

Raphael Samuel was born around 1991 in Mumbai, India, to Kavita Karnad Samuel, a homemaker, and her husband, whose name has not been publicly disclosed in reports.^[7]^[8] He has characterized his family as close-knit and supportive, emphasizing a "great relationship" with his parents who "gave me everything" and ensured a comfortable upbringing in the city.^[9]^[7] Samuel has recounted his early years as those of a "normal kid," without indications of unusual hardship or neglect that might explain his later philosophical stance.^[7] However, he traces the origins of his antinatalist beliefs to age five, when a moment of frustration—stemming from his parents' refusal of a desired item—sparked the question of why he had been born without consent, marking the inception of his view that procreation imposes unasked-for suffering.^[7] His mother, in response to his public claims, affirmed the family's bond, stating she would consider his arguments if logically presented but viewed existence itself as a "boon" rather than a burden.^[7]^[10]

Education and Early Career

Samuel worked as a businessman in Mumbai following his upbringing.^[7] ^[8] ^[11] Details of his formal education are not specified in contemporaneous media accounts or public profiles.^[7] ^[9] In the years leading to his 2019 legal action, he operated under the online pseudonym Nihil Anand, managing a Facebook page titled Nihilanand dedicated to antinatalist messaging, which he launched approximately one year prior.^[8] This platform served as an early outlet for disseminating his philosophical positions, predating broader media scrutiny.^[8]

Philosophical Development

Introduction to Antinatalism

Antinatalism is a philosophical position asserting that it is ethically wrong to procreate, as bringing new sentient beings into existence imposes unavoidable suffering without their prior consent and assigns a negative value to birth itself.^[7] Proponents argue that the harms of life—ranging from physical pain and emotional distress to existential dissatisfaction—outweigh any potential benefits, making non-existence preferable for those not yet born.^[11] This view emphasizes a deontological asymmetry: the deprivation of pleasure in non-existence does not harm anyone, whereas the introduction of suffering does inflict harm, rendering procreation a moral violation.^[12] Raphael Samuel adopted antinatalism as the foundation for his worldview, publicly articulating it through his online presence and legal challenge beginning in early 2019.^[8] He maintained that parents, by conceiving children, force them into a cycle of struggles without obtaining consent, a position he linked to broader observations of life's miseries from childhood reflections onward.^[13] Samuel's advocacy, including his Facebook page "Nihilanand" launched around 2018, disseminated antinatalist ideas by posting content challenging the ethics of reproduction and urging a cessation of childbearing to prevent further imposition of existence.^[8] While antinatalism draws from ancient pessimist traditions—such as Schopenhauer's assertion that life oscillates between pain and boredom, with desire as its driving torment—its contemporary form was systematized by philosopher David Benatar in his 2006 book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, which formalized the asymmetry argument using ethical reasoning rather than empirical averaging of life's qualities.^[14] Samuel's interpretation aligned with this, prioritizing the certainty of harm over variable pleasures, though he framed it accessibly as a parental overreach rather than abstract metaphysics.^[15] The philosophy remains marginal, with critics noting it undervalues reported human resilience and subjective well-being data from global surveys indicating net positive life evaluations for many, yet it persists as a rigorous challenge to pronatalist norms.^[16]

Core Beliefs and Arguments

Raphael Samuel's core beliefs are rooted in antinatalism, a philosophical position asserting that it is morally wrong to procreate because human life inevitably entails suffering without the potential offspring's consent. He maintains that existence subjects individuals to unavoidable harms such as pain, disease, loss, and eventual death, outweighing any possible pleasures, and that non-existence would preclude all such negatives without depriving anyone of positives since the non-existent cannot experience deprivation. Samuel explicitly states that "life is suffering and all life dies," arguing that procreation irresponsibly imposes this condition on a sentient being who had no say in the matter.^[7]^[15]^[11] Central to his arguments is the consent principle: parents cannot obtain agreement from a non-existent entity, rendering birth an unilateral ethical violation akin to imposing burdens without permission. Samuel acknowledges the practical impossibility of prior consent but insists this underscores the immorality, as it equates to "forcing" life upon someone, entitling the born individual to compensation for enduring its hardships. He draws on broader antinatalist asymmetry—where the absence of pain in non-existence is beneficial, but the absence of pleasure is neutral—to contend that creating life tips the balance toward harm, not good. Through his Facebook group "Nihilism," founded to disseminate these views, Samuel promotes voluntary human extinction as a means to halt future suffering, framing reproduction not as a right but as a perpetuation of avoidable misery.^[11]^[13]^[15] Samuel extends his critique to environmental concerns, positing that overpopulation exacerbates resource strain and ecological collapse, further justifying antinatalism as a pragmatic response to planetary limits alongside its ethical foundations. He differentiates his stance from personal hatred, emphasizing that his beliefs target the act of birth itself, not parental intent, and advocates for societal recognition of procreation's costs, including maintenance expenses he claims parents owe as "reparations" for non-consensual existence. These arguments, while aligned with thinkers like David Benatar, stem from Samuel's independent reasoning that life's net value is negative, making non-procreation the only defensible choice.^[11]^[7]

Legal Challenge

Initiation of the Lawsuit

In February 2019, Raphael Samuel, a 27-year-old Mumbai-based businessman and antinatalist, publicly declared his intention to sue his parents for conceiving and giving birth to him without his consent. Samuel, who identifies with the philosophy that procreation is inherently harmful due to the imposition of life's sufferings on non-consenting individuals, announced the plan via interviews and social media, framing it as a challenge to the ethics of reproduction.^[7]^[9] The announcement gained international attention starting around February 5, 2019, when Samuel detailed his grievance in outlets like The Hindu, stating that parents owe compensation to children for subjecting them to existence's pains, including aging, disease, and death. He emphasized a reportedly positive relationship with his parents—both lawyers—but maintained that consent for birth is impossible to obtain, rendering procreation a moral wrong. Samuel claimed to be self-representing or seeking legal aid, as multiple lawyers declined to take the case due to its novelty and lack of legal precedent under Indian family law.^[10]^[8] Initial steps included Samuel's preparation of arguments rooted in antinatalist thinkers like David Benatar, though no formal filing in Mumbai's family court was confirmed at the outset, with the effort appearing more symbolic than procedurally advanced. His mother, Kavita Karnad Samuel, responded publicly, defending parenthood and questioning the logic, while noting the family's amicable ties.^[17]^[11]

Details of the Claim

Raphael Samuel's legal claim centered on the assertion that his parents violated his rights by conceiving and giving birth to him without obtaining his prior consent, imposing upon him a life filled with inevitable suffering.^[7] He argued that procreation constitutes an ethical wrong under antinatalist principles, as it forces an individual into existence against their will, subjecting them to the miseries of life without the option of non-existence.^[11] Samuel explicitly stated that "life is hell" and that "procreation should be a crime," emphasizing that human existence serves no purpose and only perpetuates harm.^[7] In detailing his grievance, Samuel contended that parents lack the moral authority to create new life, drawing on the antinatalist view—exemplified by philosopher David Benatar's asymmetry argument—that the absence of pleasure in non-existence is not harmful, whereas the presence of pain in existence is always a net detriment.^[15] He acknowledged the practical impossibility of securing consent from a non-existent entity but maintained that this does not absolve parents of responsibility, framing birth as an uninvited imposition equivalent to denying the child the neutral state of never having been born.^[11] Samuel further claimed that since his birth was not his decision, his parents owed him compensation for the ongoing burdens of living, including daily expenses incurred "against my will."^[7] The suit sought monetary damages to offset the costs of his existence, though Samuel expressed doubt about its legal success, viewing it primarily as a platform to publicize antinatalist ideas rather than a winnable case under Indian law.^[7] He positioned the claim not as personal animosity toward his parents—who maintained an amicable relationship with him—but as a principled stand against the broader immorality of reproduction, asserting that "there's no point to humanity" and that preventing births would alleviate suffering for future generations and the environment.^[7]^[15]

Resolution and Aftermath

The lawsuit filed by Raphael Samuel against his parents in the Bombay High Court on February 5, 2019, did not proceed to trial or yield a formal judicial outcome, with no reported court rulings or settlements in subsequent years.^[7] Samuel's mother, Kavita Samuel, a lawyer, responded publicly that she supported his right to pursue the case, stating, "He is my son... If it will make him happy, he can sue me," while emphasizing their otherwise cordial relationship.^[7] His father similarly dismissed the suit's premise without estranging the family, noting the philosophical disagreement but maintaining familial ties.^[8] In the aftermath, the announcement generated extensive international media attention, positioning Samuel as a prominent voice for antinatalism and prompting debates on the ethics of procreation in outlets across India and the West.^[9] ^[11] Samuel himself described the action as a deliberate strategy to challenge societal norms on reproduction, leveraging his parents' legal background to frame the argument in terms they would comprehend, rather than seeking enforceable compensation of ₹5 crore (approximately $700,000 USD at the time) or daily maintenance fees.^[7] The episode boosted awareness of antinatalist ideas without fracturing family relations, as Samuel affirmed ongoing support from his parents despite their rejection of his core claims.^[13] By 2021, Samuel had shifted focus from litigation to broader advocacy, reiterating demands for parental restitution in interviews while acknowledging the suit's role in sparking public discourse on life's inherent harms.^[13] No evidence indicates lasting legal repercussions or financial awards, and the case served primarily as a catalyst for philosophical scrutiny rather than precedent-setting jurisprudence.^[16]

Public Reception

Media Coverage and Initial Response

Samuel's announcement of his intent to sue his parents for procreating him without consent first gained widespread media attention in early February 2019, following reports from international outlets highlighting the novelty of his antinatalist position. The BBC broke the story on February 7, 2019, detailing how the 27-year-old Mumbai resident, who identifies as an antinatalist, argued that non-existence would have spared him life's inherent suffering and that parents impose expectations without permission.^[7] Coverage quickly spread to other major publications, including The Guardian on February 6, 2019, which framed the case as a philosophical challenge to parental rights rooted in consent, and TIME magazine on February 8, 2019, which linked it to broader antinatalist advocacy via Samuel's Facebook page "Nihilanand," created about a year prior to promote views that procreation equates to imposing unasked-for burdens.^[9]^[8] Indian media also reported extensively, with The Hindu noting on February 8, 2019, that Samuel, whose parents are lawyers, maintained a cordial relationship with them despite the suit, emphasizing his belief that bringing children into a world of potential misery is immoral.^[10] Vice followed on February 10, 2019, quoting Samuel's acknowledgment of the logical paradox in seeking consent from a non-existent being, yet proceeding with the claim for damages equivalent to 500 million rupees (about $7 million USD at the time) to cover life's costs.^[18] The story's viral nature stemmed from its absurdity to many, prompting quick aggregation by outlets like ABC News Australia and local U.S. stations, often portraying it as an extreme extension of philosophical pessimism rather than a viable legal action.^[14] Initial responses were predominantly skeptical and humorous, with media commentators dismissing the suit's prospects in the Bombay High Court due to its philosophical rather than legal grounding, as Samuel struggled to secure representation.^[11] Samuel's mother, Sucheta Samuel, responded pragmatically in statements to the BBC and others, expressing admiration for his boldness—"I must admire my son’s temerity to want to take his parents to court knowing both of us are lawyers"—while asserting she would defend vigorously, viewing it as a potential lesson in reality.^[7] Public discourse, as reflected in early social media reactions cited by outlets like TIME, ranged from ridicule labeling it "crazy" to niche support among antinatalists, though broader commentary treated it as a thought experiment on consent and suffering rather than endorsing the claim.^[8] The coverage amplified antinatalism's fringe visibility but reinforced perceptions of it as eccentric, with no immediate legal progress reported beyond the filing intent.

Broader Influence on Discussions

Samuel's 2019 lawsuit against his parents for procreating without his consent garnered international media attention, elevating antinatalism from a niche philosophical stance to a topic of broader public discourse. Coverage in outlets such as the BBC, The Guardian, and Vox highlighted the case as an extreme manifestation of arguments against bringing new life into existence due to inherent suffering and lack of consent, prompting online debates and opinion pieces on the ethics of reproduction.^[7]^[9]^[11] The publicity linked antinatalist ideas to contemporary concerns, including environmental overpopulation and resource strain, as evidenced by discussions framing non-procreation as a response to climate challenges.^[16] In philosophical circles, the case was invoked to revisit David Benatar's asymmetry argument—that non-existence avoids harm without depriving of benefits—spurring articles exploring whether procreation constitutes an ethical imposition.^[15]^[12] While not shifting legal precedents, Samuel's action influenced cultural conversations, appearing in analyses of voluntary human extinction movements and critiques of pronatalist societal norms, with references persisting in media up to 2021 theological and ethical reviews.^[19] Critics noted the stunt's role in amplifying fringe views, though empirical data on increased antinatalist identification remains anecdotal, tied to social media trends post-2019 rather than measurable policy shifts.^[20]

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Philosophical Objections

Philosophical objections to Raphael Samuel's antinatalist position, which centers on the purported immorality of procreation due to the absence of prior consent from the potential child, primarily revolve around the logical incoherence of applying consent requirements to non-existent entities. Critics argue that non-existence entails no capacity for interests, preferences, or rights violations, rendering the demand for consent inapplicable and akin to a category error; a being that does not exist cannot be wronged by its creation, as it lacks any state to prefer or oppose.^[21] This view posits that Samuel's framework conflates the impossibility of consent with moral prohibition, but impossibility alone does not equate to harm, much as one cannot violate the consent of future hypothetical persons in unrelated decisions.^[22] A related critique invokes the non-identity problem, originally articulated by Derek Parfit, which challenges the idea that procreation harms a specific individual by bringing them into existence without agreement. Under this reasoning, the alternative to birth is not a harmed version of the same person but sheer non-existence, meaning no identifiable victim suffers deprivation; Samuel's complaint thus fails to identify a coherent party aggrieved, as the "child" he references only emerges post-creation.^[23] Philosophers like Larry Sanger extend this by noting that antinatalism's consent-based deontology ignores consequentialist benefits of procreation, such as the realized goods of human flourishing and autonomy that many born individuals affirm retrospectively through their continued existence and pursuits.^[22] Further objections target the pessimistic asymmetry underlying Samuel's implied valuation of life—echoing David Benatar's formulation that non-existence avoids suffering (deemed good) while lacking pleasure (neutral)—by questioning its arbitrary weighting of absences. Detractors contend that this asymmetry lacks empirical or axiomatic justification, as the absence of pleasure could symmetrically be viewed as a deprivation if potential joys are considered valuable, and life's net value is often positive based on self-reported human satisfaction and achievements, undermining the blanket moral condemnation of birth.^[24] Richard Carrier describes such positions as contrafactual, arguing they lead to absurd implications like obligatory extinction without addressing why existent persons, capable of ending their suffering, do not uniformly opt for suicide if non-existence is preferable.^[21] These critiques highlight antinatalism's potential self-undermining nature: if procreation is inherently wrongful imposition, consistency demands rejecting one's own existence, yet Samuel's advocacy presumes the validity of his voice and agency, which derive from the very act he condemns.^[22] While Samuel frames birth as akin to enslavement or kidnapping without consent, opponents counter that parental decisions operate under reasonable epistemic limits, presuming offspring's capacity for eudaimonic life, a stance supported by widespread affirmative stances toward existence in surveys of well-being.^[23] Critics of Samuel's antinatalist position, which centers on the lack of consent for birth as an ethical violation, contend that consent cannot apply to non-existent entities, rendering the argument logically incoherent since no individual exists prior to procreation to grant or withhold agreement.^[23] ^[25] This objection holds that potential persons possess no interests or capacity for harm in a state of non-existence, thus procreation does not impose an unconsented burden but rather creates the opportunity for experiential goods that outweigh inevitable pains for many.^[26] Ethical philosophers further challenge the asymmetry in antinatalist reasoning—positing absence of pleasure as neutral but presence of pain as bad—by arguing it undervalues empirical evidence of human fulfillment, resilience, and net positive life evaluations reported across psychological studies and self-reported well-being data.^[26] ^[27] On social grounds, Samuel's advocacy is faulted for promoting a view that erodes familial and communal bonds essential to human society, by framing procreation as inherently irresponsible and parents as perpetrators of harm, which discourages reproduction and risks demographic decline in aging populations.^[28] Proponents of pronatalist ethics assert that voluntary human extinction, implied by strict antinatalism, ignores the societal benefits of generational continuity, innovation, and cultural preservation driven by family units, potentially leading to civilizational collapse without countervailing incentives for population maintenance.^[29] Critics also highlight sociological naivety in dismissing adaptive human behaviors that mitigate suffering through social structures, technology, and mutual support, viewing antinatalism as an overgeneralization from individual discontent rather than a realistic appraisal of collective human progress.^[21]

Ongoing Advocacy

Promotion of Antinatalist Ideas

Raphael Samuel has promoted antinatalism primarily through social media and public statements, emphasizing the philosophy's core tenet that procreation imposes suffering on non-consenting individuals. In approximately 2018, he established a Facebook page named Nihilanand, dedicated to disseminating antinatalist messages that argue against reproduction due to life's inherent miseries, which garnered varied responses including support and ridicule.^[8]^[7] His 2019 lawsuit against his parents was explicitly framed as a vehicle to elevate antinatalist discourse, rather than a pursuit of legal victory or personal grievance, aiming to challenge societal norms around birth and consent. Samuel articulated in interviews that parents lack moral permission to create life, given the guaranteed hardships it entails, positioning antinatalism as an ethical imperative to prevent harm.^[30]^[15] Following the lawsuit's dismissal without trial, Samuel has sustained advocacy by aligning with broader antinatalist discussions, including linkages to environmental concerns over population growth, though specific post-2019 activities remain centered on online platforms and occasional media appearances reiterating his views on voluntary human extinction as a harm-reduction strategy.^[16]^[31]

Personal Reflections and Current Status

Samuel has expressed that his antinatalist convictions stem from a philosophical assessment of existence as inherently burdensome, asserting that non-existence precludes suffering while birth imposes it without consent. In a 2019 interview with the BBC, he described his parents as "very good" and himself as having a fulfilling life, yet maintained the suit on principle, stating, "Most people don't agree with me... but they will one day when they see the logic."^[7] He has further reflected that procreation serves parental self-interest, as "people have children for their pleasure but children then have to suffer," a view he articulated in contemporaneous discussions with outlets like Mint, emphasizing life's net negativity despite personal contentment.^[32] The legal action against his parents concluded without a trial, as Indian courts dismissed it for lacking legal basis under existing family law frameworks.^[33] Samuel continues to reside in Mumbai, where he operates a business, and identifies as childfree, aligning with his advocacy against reproduction.^[8] As of 2025, he sustains low-profile online engagement promoting antinatalism, posting memes critiquing parenthood and endorsing efilism—the active prevention of births to avert suffering—via platforms like Instagram (@nihilanand000, with over 1,400 posts on childfree themes) and X (formerly Twitter, @nihilanand, self-described as "Efilist. Antinatalist").^[34]^[35] In a 2022 interview, he extended his reflections to critique charitable efforts that indirectly support population growth, arguing they perpetuate future harm.^[36] No public records indicate shifts in his core positions or major life changes since the 2019 publicity.

References

[1]
Samuel, Raphael - Historian Profiles - Making History
A social historian and advocate of 'history from below', Samuel was most noted for his role in establishing the History Workshop movement.
[2]
The Histories of Raphael Samuel - OAPEN Home
This book situates British historian Raphael Samuel (1934–1996) in relation to his distinctive form of activist politics as they developed.<|separator|>
[3]
Raphael Samuel Archive - Bishopsgate Institute
Raphael Elkan Samuel (1934 - 1996) was a British Marxist historian, described by Stuart Hall as "one of the most outstanding, original intellectuals of his ...
[4]
Raphael Samuel (1934-1996): History in the Making
This Virtual Special Issue of History Workshop Journal contains all Raphael Samuel's major articles and essays, and a selection of shorter pieces and ...
[5]
Why Raphael Samuel Matters - Jacobin
May 6, 2024 · Raphael Samuel, one of Britain's most brilliant historians of the popular classes, was a contemporary of EP Thompson and Stuart Hall but never enjoyed their ...
[6]
Raphael Samuel History Centre - Birkbeck, University of London
The Raphael Samuel History Centre is an outreach and research centre supported by a two-way partnership between Birkbeck and Queen Mary.
[7]
Indian man to sue parents for giving birth to him - BBC
Feb 7, 2019 · A 27-year-old Indian man plans to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent. Mumbai businessman Raphael Samuel told the BBC ...
[8]
Indian Man to Sue Parents Because He Didn't Want to Be Born | TIME
Feb 8, 2019 · The BBC reports that Raphael Samuel from Mumbai identifies as “anti-natalist,” a belief that life is so insufferable that people should stop ...
[9]
Did you consent to being born? Why one man is suing his parents ...
Feb 6, 2019 · Raphael Samuel, a 27-year-old antinatalist from Mumbai, believes it was wrong for his mother and father to create him without his consent.
[10]
Mumbai man says he will sue parents for bringing him into world ...
Feb 8, 2019 · His mother, Kavita Karnad Samuel, took a lawyerly approach. On Raphael's Facebook wall, Kavita wrote, “If Raphael could come up with a ...Missing: names | Show results with:names
[11]
This man is trying to sue his parents for giving birth to him - Vox
Feb 7, 2019 · That's (approximately) the logic of Raphael Samuel, a Mumbai business executive trying to sue his parents for creating him. He told the BBC that ...Missing: occupation | Show results with:occupation
[12]
Antinatalism: The Tragedy of Being Born
Feb 22, 2019 · Samuel affirms what's known as 'antinatalism,' a philosophical position which contends that it is always, in principle, wrong to procreate.
[13]
Raphael Samuel: Why Did This Gentleman Sue His Parents For ...
Jun 8, 2021 · Mr Samuel from Mumbai understands that our consent can't be sought before we are born, but insists that “it was not our decision to be born”.
[14]
Indian 'anti-natalist' Raphael Samuel taking legal action against his ...
Feb 8, 2019 · Twenty-seven-year-old Raphael Samuel says he plans to take legal action against his parents because they brought him into the world without his consent.Missing: upbringing | Show results with:upbringing
[15]
There's a serious philosophical argument supporting the man suing ...
The plaintiff behind the lawsuit, 27-year-old Raphael Samuel, believes in “anti-natalism,” namely the philosophical theory that parents do not have moral ...
[16]
I wish I'd never been born: the rise of the anti-natalists - The Guardian
Nov 14, 2019 · Samuel subscribes to a philosophy called anti-natalism. The basic tenet of anti-natalism is simple but, for most of us, profoundly ...
[17]
This Mumbai Man Wants To Sue His Parents For Giving Birth To Him
Feb 6, 2019 · A 27-year-old from Mumbai is planning to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent. Raphael Samuel has made news around the world.
[18]
An Indian Man Is Suing His Parents for Conceiving Him Without His ...
Feb 10, 2019 · A 27-year-old man is attempting to sue his parents on the basis that he never consented to being born. Mumbai businessman Raphael Samuel identifies as an “ ...Missing: initiation date
[19]
Is it wrong to bring children into a broken world? The theological ...
Mar 9, 2021 · The fundamental question of secular antinatalist thought is at its core a religious one: Is our life, in the final analysis, truly a gift? In ...
[20]
What Is Anti-Natalism? The Controversial Movement Against Having ...
May 18, 2025 · Anti-natalism, a relatively new social movement, argue giving birth is immoral. The anti-natalists I've interviewed push back against the idea that ...
[21]
Antinatalism Is Contrafactual & Incoherent - Richard Carrier Blogs
Oct 10, 2022 · Antinatalism holds that being alive causes suffering, such that not being alive is better. This entails killing everyone, and yourself. To try ...
[22]
Against Anti-Natalism - LarrySanger.org
Nov 11, 2019 · The anti-natalist's bête noir. Anti-natalism is the view that that human beings should not have children, because it is unethical to do so.
[23]
Anti-Natalism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The specific arguments outlined in this article include the Asymmetry Argument, the Deluded Gladness Argument, the Hypothetical Consent Argument, the No Victim ...
[24]
Anti-natalism: David Benatar Is Wrong | National Review
May 29, 2019 · On abortion, he concludes that aborting fetuses prior to the point of sentience is not only permissible but morally obligatory. Benatar's ...
[25]
Antinatalism and the Consent Argument | by Sam Woolfe - Medium
Nov 2, 2020 · Antinatalism is the view that it is morally wrong to procreate. The common arguments used to defend antinatalism include the position that existence is an ...
[26]
What Criticisms Are Directed Towards Anti-Natalism? - TheCollector
Nov 5, 2023 · Critics of anti-natalism, the view that procreation is morally wrong, argue that procreation is at least morally permissible.
[27]
Guest Post: Must Antinatalists Be Pessimists? - Practical Ethics
Oct 10, 2024 · Antinatalists must either be ill or have an excessively negative outlook on human existence. Either way, their views can be dismissed.
[28]
Is Antinatalism Creeping Into Society? | HLI - Human Life International
Mar 13, 2020 · Though the roots of antinatalism can be found in Ancient Greece, they are also found in some early Christian sects that have since been declared ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[29]
Debating Pro- and Anti-Natalism - The Prindle Institute for Ethics
10 nov 2023 · For pronatalists, having children is a moral necessity for which we should be commended and those who avoid such a “duty” should receive condemnation.
[30]
“Born Without My Permission?! ” In 2019, Raphael Samuel, a ...
Jul 30, 2025 · His goal? Not fame or vengeance, but to promote antinatalism, a controversial philosophy that questions the morality of bringing new life into ...
[31]
Does the earth have too many people? - WORLD News Group
Jan 16, 2025 · Raphael Samuel rocketed to sudden worldwide fame when he filed a lawsuit against his parents—for bringing him into the world without his consent ...
[32]
Opinion: Here's why Raphael Samuel didn't ask to be born - Mint
15 Feb 2019 · Raphael Samuel, a 27-year-old resident of Mumbai, recently made news when he announced that he wanted to sue his parents for giving birth to ...
[33]
Was there ever a result in the Raphael Samuel lawsuit? : r/antinatalism
Aug 31, 2022 · "If Raphael could come up with a rational explanation as to how we could have sought his consent to be born, I will accept my fault.".TIL A 27-year old man from India attempted to sue his parents for ...(Rafael Samuel, 27, is suing his parents for giving birth to him ...More results from www.reddit.com
[34]
https://www.instagram.com/nihilanand000/
[35]
https://x.com/nihilanand
[36]
Think Before Donating To Charity | Nihil Anand | The Labyrinth
Oct 14, 2022 · Raphael Samuel aka Nihil Anand is a prominent anti-natalist and nihilist in India. He first gained popularity in 2019 for suing his parents for giving birth ...