Putting money where one's mouth is - if you'd like to be taken seriously - entails passionate political action. Is your anti-natalism a fair-weather posturing directed exclusively toward feckless internet chatter? Or have you thrown your hat in with the movement? — ZzzoneiroCosm
How this doesnt count as preaching and against forum regs is beyond me. — DingoJones
It's an argument. It's quite a strong argument against any form of utilitarianism. "Your joy cannot justify my suffering." Schop is extending the complaint of the monster against Frankenstein to that of every unhappy person against their parents. Repetitive is a fair complaint, but not preaching. — unenlightened
I disagree, I think... — DingoJones
Here is a test — DingoJones
So it is with this latest incarnation of how evil it is to have kids. We're taking a gamble on the relative consequences for the whole community (or at least, I think we should be - I'm not about to argue that most people make moral choices about having children, I'm pretty sure they don't). — Isaac
So there will be a next generation. The choice then is - is it better for that community that I have and raise children, or that I don't. — Isaac
It seems to follow from this that if one considers oneself more likely to raise children more beneficial than average one is obliged to do so. If one is of the opposite opinion, one is obliged to not. — Isaac
Given the above, the only remaining issue would be if your, as yet, unborn child also carries that duty. If not, then you'd be imposing on their autonomy. But if such a duty of care were not considered categorical, then we need have no care for the future children in any case, so we must presume it is categorical. Given that, we can be certain that our, as yet unborn, children will inherit that duty. It is therefore no additional imposition on them. — Isaac
So the 'experimenting' issue doesn't arise at an individual level. There may be some merit in it at a community level (we're gambling that continuing the human race is overall a good idea), but such decisions (as far as individuals are concerned) have already been made. — Isaac
There seems to me to be two main justifications for having children. Either - "I think they'll like this", or "I think they ought to help with this", or I suppose a bit of both. Both are estimates where there's no loss to the individual for not even taking the bet (the antinatalist argument in a nutshell), but both estimates run a risk to the community from not even taking the bet. — Isaac
disagree that ethics is at a social level. The ACTUAL entity affected by any decision isn't a social entity, but the individual within that society. So any decision "socially" made is affecting the individual. If you want to talk about politics or social policy that is one thing, but in terms of ethics, anything that overlooks the individual for an amorphous collective would be missing the target. — schopenhauer1
It is using of people for the greater good. — schopenhauer1
This attempt to turn "some procreation is bad" into "all procreation is bad" just falls flat in every regard. — Tzeentch
So you have duties to another single individual, but not duties to a number of individuals collectively. That seems like rather an odd ethical position. Which individual should we pick when more than one is going to be effected by our actions? — Isaac
I can't make any sense of this. Either we all simply do as we please (complete respect for autonomy) or we accept duties which constrain our behaviour with respect to the welfare of others. Given the former, there's nothing stopping us having children, given the latter (presuming they are an inherent part of being human) then any children, real or potential, are going to have those duties too. You seem to want to constrain the current generation with ethical considerations, but absolve the next generation of all responsibilities. — Isaac
The fact that there exists a distribution between happy and unhappy people doesn't lead to the conclusion that procreation is experimentation. It means that a number of parents are right in their assessment of being able to properly raise children and a number of parents are wrong. — Tzeentch
This attempt to turn "some procreation is bad" into "all procreation is bad" just falls flat in every regard. — Tzeentch
Good point - 'experimentation' suggests raising happy (as opposed to distressed) children is an unknown quantity. We know plenty about how to raise happy children, we know plenty about how to make happy adults. The fact that we're not doing either is social and political, nothing to do with procreation. — Isaac
I am not saying that ethics does not apply to many individuals at once. Rather, what I am saying is ethics does not apply to some third-party entity or concept (e.g. humanity, the species, society, the greater good principle, life for life's sake, the pursuit of happiness, etc.). — schopenhauer1
I don't know where you get that last part about generations. All generations would be constrained by the negative ethical principles of non-aggression and non-harm. — schopenhauer1
Again, it is hubris to think we know with surety such outcomes. We simply don't. Even if there is a tendency, and even if we can define and agree upon what "positive outcomes" are, there will certainly be those who don't fit the mold. Thus, there will always be collateral damage. The experimentation aspect is still there. — schopenhauer1
What is 'society' other than 'many individuals'? — Isaac
I'm pointing out that this new tack of 'experimentation' does not add anything new to your previous approaches. If one agrees with your ethical foundation, then it leads to the position you hold. If one has different ethical foundations, they lead to different positions. Your argument that we should not 'experiment' on future generations does not hold if we hold to certain duties (which would then apply also to future generations). If, rather, we only hold to a radical non-aggression principle, your argument stands, but if we hold to such a position, your other arguments stand too, this latest adds nothing. — Isaac
Why is it hubristic for me to state that we know how to make people happy, but not equally hubristic for you to say you know there will always be those who don't fit. How do you access knowledge of the human condition which is hidden from me? — Isaac
If you are breaking negative ethics (non-aggression/non-harm) in order to fulfill some positive ethics (I think this is better for you, this is better for society), then something has been violated. — schopenhauer1
Forcing someone to be born because society MUST benefit from children of certain parents (which is just odd to me anyways in your argument), would be wrong. — schopenhauer1
there will always be people that don't fit — schopenhauer1
There is no one-to-one ratio of good intentioned, good child-rearing parents always producing the best outcomes. — schopenhauer1
Even if this were the case, there is always collateral damage of those who don't fit this model. You simply cannot get around the collateral damage problem. — schopenhauer1
There will be another generation, that generation will have problems to solve. Those are not ideological commitments, they're just inductive beliefs. I have two choices - have children and raise them to help solve those problems, or not have children and leave those problems to someone else to deal with. I can't see any sound ethical position which supports the latter. It sounds like nothing but selfishness. — Isaac
I'm asking how you know this. — Isaac
Well, there doesn't have to be, unless you believe that parents of happy children are somehow also responsible for unhappy children. — Tzeentch
I suppose this ties in with that last line: I don't see how successful parents can somehow be blamed for the failure of unsuccessful parents, which is what I believe you are implying. — Tzeentch
In a way they are, but only because the parents procreated the children. You cannot force someone into a game, and then say "Well it's YOUR fault for not liking it". — schopenhauer1
There are no guaranteed outcomes for what people are like or what they do, or what will befall them, or what conditions they might face, or how their day-to-day life turns out, or how they view life. — schopenhauer1
I meant it differently. How can parents of happy children be held responsible for another couple's unhappy children? The way you phrase your previous argument you make it sound like parenting is a combined effort by all parents everywhere. I disagree with this. I think it is an individual effort and it should be judged on an individual basis. — Tzeentch
And you believe this is what makes procreation immoral, no matter how good the "odds"? — Tzeentch
That is why I started a separate thread, because this is the popular one "the odds are good so it's good"! This is what I consider brute utilitarianism. It does not get around the collateral damage objection. — schopenhauer1
So what amount of uncertainty is acceptable? Or is uncertainty always unacceptable? — 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.