The celibate individual

The paper reconsiders celibacy not as an absence of sexual activity but as an ethical and existential choice. It is “The Nobility and Exemplarity of the Celibate Individual” (first edition 21 October 2025, revised 22 August 2026; 10.5281/zenodo.22058254). It is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.

The argument has two steps. The first is negative. The usual view that sexual activity is a duty, because society cannot continue without reproduction, derives an individual obligation from a biological fact; the paper argues that this move does not survive Benatar’s antinatalist argument. The second is positive. Drawing on Epicurus’s distinction between kinetic and stable pleasure and on Schopenhauer’s metaphysics of the will, it values celibacy as a form of self-sustaining well-being that does not depend on others or on cycles of desire.

The scope of the claim is narrow. The paper does not say celibacy is the only right way, or that everyone should choose it. It concludes that celibacy merits recognition as

… one exemplary and defensible path of ethical self-cultivation, rather than as a deficiency to be explained away.

It answers four objections. From relational psychology; that antinatalism, universalized, undermines itself; that the argument is theologically parochial; and that judgments of quality of life are subjective. Each reply rests on the point that no empirical claim is made that celibates are happier on average.

The record admits the gaps in the paper. The negative step targets reproduction; the positive step targets sexual activity itself. Contraception separates the two, and the paper does not address it (N5). The paper defends chosen celibacy but does not say so explicitly, and does not separate it from involuntary sexual inactivity, asexuality or aromanticism (N6). Without that distinction, a reading that praises what was not chosen becomes possible. This page speaks only of chosen celibacy.

Other ways of living are not rejected. The paper accepts that some people reasonably and autonomously judge that partnered or sexual life better serves their flourishing. Its claim is that celibacy deserves recognition as one exemplary option within that plurality.

The record admits two more things. The manuscript was written in Japanese, and the published English is a translation by a language model (E5). The author has not read most of the cited sources (E6). Both are in the errata. The paper is frozen; corrections go into the errata.

This is not a theory. It is a normative philosophical argument with no empirical support. Claiming a contribution and having the field count it are different things.

The revision of the paper was prepared with Claude (Anthropic), and this page was written with Claude Code. The author is responsible for the claims. Claude is not an author.