What makes happiness an automatic justification for procreation of another person? — schopenhauer1
So what makes happiness an automatic justification for someone is that that's their disposition. It's how they feel about happiness versus other emotional (or situational) modalities. — Terrapin Station
However, this makes an assumption that happiness, and the pursuit thereof, is a reason unto itself for why procreation is justified. What makes happiness an automatic justification for procreation of another person? Is it really the ultimate "trump" card for why it is justified to put new people into existence and have to experience life? — schopenhauer1
Non-sequitur, really. Happiness isn't the ultimate goal of life, and thinking so would cause the very misery you are propounding against existence... — Wallows
I agree, but this does not stop people from thinking that "pursuing happiness" is a principle people should be forced into pursuing by procreation. — schopenhauer1
And, we can both agree that such people are stupid and will suffer, so why use them as a template against the very notion of existence, which goes way beyond the notion of "happiness"? — Wallows
Then you can tell them to feck off. They're misguided, like some religious fanatics that want to live forever in some paradise. — Wallows
Correct. They are misguided as they are using "the pursuit of happiness" as an excuse to justify violating the non-aggression principle (not forcing others). It is the ultimate "get out of free card" because somehow the connotation of the emotion/state-of-being of happiness makes people fee warm and fuzzy and therefore must be automatically a good justification. — schopenhauer1
You don't talk much about Nietzsche; but, he expounded on this to great lengths. — Wallows
Any quotes? I think you might be relating this to his idea of beyond good and evil and eternal return — schopenhauer1
From what I remember, you don't have any prescriptive ethics. — schopenhauer1
if someone was to steal someone's property and find out that they were happy about this later on, you would be ok with the fact that the thief stole someone else's property. — schopenhauer1
Aside from the fact that it's not stealing if the person is given consent to take the property, it's the height of moralizing in the negative sense (the sense of haughtily, self-righteously telling people what they should be doing) to say that something is a problem when the people involved in the action in question don't have a problem with it. — Terrapin Station
I think taking the species point of view as a means of averting disaster has a better chance of being developed than convincing particular people they want stupid things. — Valentinus
More precisely to your point, how does being born have to do with your parents at all? — Valentinus
I do not understand this. Is the argument that people experience happiness when alive and it is a good thing, so we should procreate? If so, it is as good as the argument that existence has harm and we should steer away from harm at all costs, so we should not procreate-not that good.Correct. They are misguided as they are using "the pursuit of happiness" as an excuse to justify violating the non-aggression principle (not forcing others). It is the ultimate "get out of free card" because somehow the connotation of the emotion/state-of-being of happiness makes people fee warm and fuzzy and therefore must be automatically a good justification. — schopenhauer1
I do not understand this. Is the argument that people experience happiness when alive and it is a good thing, so we should procreate? If so, it is as good as the argument that existence has harm and we should steer away from harm at all costs, so we should not procreate-not that good.
Also, why should we adopt the non-agression principle? I believe that the answer to this question can help us understand whetever reasons for procreating justify violating it are good or not. — HereToDisscuss
I am going to accept all of you said: This is a violation of this principle, we do it in order to "deliver happiness" (my argument would not be that they would experience happiness but rather that, in order to have a society that we want, be it an utilitarian or a Kantian or something else one, we have to have alive people-otherwise there would not be a society at all, but this particular argument still holds against your objection, so there is no problem) and parents are on such a mission that they hold that individuals must follow.So, why should we adapt the non-aggression principle? Why should people be forced into anything at all? That is the heart of the matter. There is an agenda taking place, and this agenda is literally forced onto the next generation. Why should the person be forced into this agenda, be it happiness principle or otherwise? Let me ask you this, if happiness is the goal, are parents then messianic "deliverers" of happiness by having children? Are they on some sort of mission whereby individuals are beholden to follow? This may sound odd, but that is the logical conclusion of such thinking- even if the person presenting it has not thought it all the way through. — schopenhauer1
For children who have had a healthy upbringing life is generally a positive experience. I'd consider that enough reason to put the "Procreation is bad. Period." argument on hold. The question should be whether everybody, including those people who are incapable of providing a healthy upbringing for a child, should be having children. — Tzeentch
Sometimes people need a little nudge to grow. — Tzeentch
Because sometimes others know what is best for you. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.