Abstract

Recently, Kenneth Himma (2010) argued that salvific exclusivism, some common beliefs about Hell, and a plausible moral principle entailed anti-natalism. Himma is on to something. But given the dialectic between Himma and a staunch critic, Shaun Bawulski (2013), I’ll provide a stronger version of Himma’s argument that allows us to discard a commitment to salvific exclusivism and satisfactorily respond to some of Bawulski’s strongest objections. In this paper, I’ll argue that some common beliefs about Hell, a risk-averse decision principle, and Himma’s moral principle—reworked in light of the risk-averse decision principle—entail anti-natalism.