Professors, like other teachers, must accustom themselves to being misinterpreted. For example, in a philosophy of law class I once cited the famous adage, variously and often mistakenly attributed, that “my right to swing my arm, ends at the tip of your nose”. This principle conveys the internal logic of a right to freedom – I am free to do as I please, on condition that I do not thereby impinge on the freedom of others.

In an exam essay, one of my students reported the adage as “my right to swing my arm ends at the tips of my fingers”, which need take no account of where your nose is. That may be an amusing blooper in an exam, but it would be very unfunny if acted upon in practice.

The words of authors typically have a broader reach than those of teachers. When those words are misconstrued as the “fringe philosophy believed to have inspired” a terror attack, we sadly find ourselves in a very different realm. This is what happened to me when Guy Edward Bartkus bombed a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California, on 17 May 2025.

In his manifesto, he cited his antinatalism, a view I defended in my 2006 book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. He cited a range of other views too, including ones which are much more relevant to his attack. Unfortunately and inappropriately, it is his antinatalism that has typically been foregrounded by the media.

In doing so, the press has joined the terrorist in misconstruing what antinatalism is. In brief, antinatalism is the view that it is wrong to bring new sentient beings into existence. This conclusion can be reached via different routes, but the strongest arguments are grounded in concern for the harms that will be suffered by those who come into existence.

Some media have suggested that the view is associated with utilitarianism, the view that the right action is the one that produces the best consequences overall. It is true that one way to reach the antinatalist conclusion is via negative utilitarianism, which focuses on avoiding bad consequences rather than on producing good ones.

Taken to its logical conclusion, negative utilitarianism opposes procreation, because not bringing a child into existence is the only way to ensure that that child suffers no harm. However, contrary to common assertion, I am not a utilitarian, and my arguments for antinatalism do not presuppose any particular ethical theory.

Another common mistake is the statement that antinatalism is “nihilistic”. Nihilism, at least about values, claims that there are no values. Nothing is good or bad, and nothing matters morally. That is not true of antinatalism, which very emphatically values the avoidance of inflicting harm. Even Mr Bartkus, in his manifesto, eschewed nihilism. He too had values. The problem was that they included many of the wrong values, and omitted some important ones.

Death is among the harms that will inevitably befall those who are brought into existence. When you create a child, you know that that child will eventually die, and usually not painlessly. Herein lies the response to a common and callous response to antinatalism: “If you are so unhappy about being born, just kill yourself.”

Because death is, in my view, such a serious harm, there is no cost-free way out of existence. By contrast, not being brought into existence is cost-free (to the person who would be created). If you never exist, there is nobody to be deprived of the goods you might enjoy if you are created.

The fact that death is such a serious harm, is one reason why I am not a “pro-mortalist” – somebody who is in favour of death. Another reason for my opposition to inflicting death on others, is that it violates their rights to make their own decisions about when the harm of death is outweighed by the harm of continued existence – which can be a reasonable judgement when people are in extremis.

Mr Bartkus claimed to be a “pro-mortalist”, a view much more clearly connected with a purported justification for killing than is antinatalism. Yet, that has typically not been the press’s focus.

In my book, I argued that although procreation is morally wrong, there are very good reasons not to restrict people’s reproductive freedom. People should have a legal right to do some things that are morally wrong. (Another example, is a legal right to freedom of speech, even when people use that right to say things that it is morally wrong to say.)

I am also repeatedly on record as opposing violence in pursuit of antinatalism. But you would not know it, or would be hard-pressed to infer this from much of the coverage by the press and others in the reporting and commenting on Mr Bartkus’ actions.

Antinatalism is indeed a fringe view, which does not mean that it is false. Either way, it is not a malicious view. Of course, it can be twisted into a dangerous idea, and that prompts some people to wonder whether the view should be expressed at all. However, drawing that conclusion would be a mistake.

Any view, no matter how benign can be distorted or overlaid with other, vicious ideas. However, if that were a reason not to express an idea, no ideas could be expressed. Christians sometimes kill abortion providers, and vegans sometimes turn violent, but that does not mean that either Christianity or veganism per se should not be espoused.

We – not only academics, but also journalists and others – should approach the world with the nuance that its complexity requires. And we should caution against misinterpretations of that nuance. There will still be people who misunderstand, either ignorantly, wilfully, or though mental illness. However, these problems require other solutions, imperfect though they may be.