thus proving that the reproductive drive is very persistent, resilient, and insistent — Bitter Crank
It's still a voluntary choice, though. — Thorongil
Because some would rather term elevated selfishness “non-selfish”, this then presents one non-selfish reason/motive to have children: yes, laughable as it may seem, for the benefit of mankind (a category which does not exclude the very parents of elevated selfishness/selflessness which given birth … nor the very offspring themselves). — javra
Thus, the best choice of all is never having been. — schopenhauer1
If I remember correctly, some Buddhists (?) see procreation as a necessary evil that prevents souls from regressing into "lesser" states of being. Paradoxically, if humans do not procreate, they doom everyone to an endless cycle of rebirth in lesser forms of life (which do procreate). — darthbarracuda
Any reason to have children, in my opinion, must either be religious or intra-wordly, the latter being things like economic stability (such as government incentives to procreate). Intra-wordly reasons seem to me to almost always be selfish and immoral, since they necessarily use a person as a means and not as an end. — darthbarracuda
Yuck, utilitarianism — darthbarracuda
In that case, it may not be selfish, but it certainly isn't wise or prudent. And it certainly contradicts everything that goes into being a good parent - try explaining to your child that you had them with the sole intention of grooming them to be providers of utility. That's a shit parent. — darthbarracuda
the child also inherits an amalgamation of the two parent’s worldviews — javra
ethical for elevated selfishness — javra
Because some would rather term elevated selfishness “non-selfish”, — javra
for the benefit of mankind (a category which does not exclude the very parents of elevated selfishness/selflessness which given birth … nor the very offspring themselves). — javra
Consequently, I want to understand what positive reasons there are to have children, specifically those that are not based in egotism. — Thorongil
But is civilization an end in itself? I think not. — Thorongil
Secular natalists and parents are therefore on the thinnest ice of all when it comes to reasons to procreate. — Thorongil
By having more people you are creating a state of affairs whereby more people will need to be helped, when they didn't need to be helped in the first place. — schopenhauer1
Thus, the best choice of all is never having been. — schopenhauer1
Selfishness isn't ethical, though. This is a category mistake.
[...]
Now here's the makings of a nonselfish reason. What do you mean by mankind? It sounds Platonic. — Thorongil
What is it about mankind that it needs maintaining? — Thorongil
It seems to me that having and raising children is a kind of gift, if done in the right way. What you are doing is providing a whole new life the means to live happily. — Moliere
Don't kids give you a reason not to be selfish? Aren't they an antidote to egotism? — apokrisis
Why not? — apokrisis
why isn't a civilised self a better self? — apokrisis
But then secular thinkers would have the least need of reasons here. They would just do what comes naturally - which includes making fairly rational choices about the situational pros and cons of having kids. — apokrisis
but I don’t comprehend how mankind could have any value to anyone outside of self-interests in the wellbeing of others — javra
Am I missing something here? — javra
And it seems to me that you (or the hypothetical you) is wearing rose-tinted glasses here. One ought to remember that for every pleasant picnic at the park. — Buxtebuddha
there's such a degree of suffering that exists in the world that one's best and only choice is to ignore the vast majority of it. No one with a well-cultivated conscience could go on living if the weight of the world's suffering was in their mind as much as it probably should be — Buxtebuddha
This is a post-natal contingency. I'm talking about the selfishness of procreation itself, not the possible lack thereof as a result of having children. Besides, if this is true, then one can simply adopt, so you still haven't said anything about procreation proper. — Thorongil
But to paraphrase schopenhauer1, by having children you are creating a state of affairs whereby more people will need to be civilized, when they didn't need to be civilized in the first place by never having been born. — Thorongil
To procreate for the sake of the band-aid is therefore irrational, as the band-aid only exists to heal the wound, which it can't ever completely do. — Thorongil
antinatalism tacitly assumes moral realism, for it regards procreation as immoral in principle — Thorongil
the only way that you'd be able to get away with mere good intentions is to equate existence with love. — Buxtebuddha
I do not, however, equate being with love, which explains why I'm not a Christian and why I don't find it justifiable to procreate. — Buxtebuddha
Lastly, the picture that comes to mind for me when thinking about procreation is children falling into an ocean. Some will learn to swim, some will drown. Some will swim and find dry land, some will swim a ways but give up. You can give the child a rope, a life vest, a granola bar - things that can represent good parenting - but none of it, in my opinion, is enough to justify the throwing of children into an ocean in the first place. Suffering will find you whether you learned how to swim, found land, founded an empire. I think it is Schopenhauer who argued rather peculiarly that suffering, not happiness, is what marks the world for compassion. In this way, or at least how I view it, one rather paradoxically lives for suffering in order to love, as opposed to loving so as not to suffer. To me, that puts everyone in the same "boat" or ocean. The fact that some find love and compassion doesn't actually matter if suffering is the mean. — Buxtebuddha
Not a good argument. To procreate is to have kids. But perhaps you are not seeing it from a mother's point of view. The male can pretend it is all rather more abstract. — apokrisis
I'm due in 3 weeks with our first and before we decided to breed, I went through a period of trying to find a 'pre-conception' reason to have kids. Everything I could think of were 'post-conception' reasons (these are my made up terms), like to love them unconditionally, raise them to be independent, etc. And reasons like adding to our own loving family, having a legacy, etc seemed to be 'selfish' reasons - selfish in the very literalist sense. 'Self-focused' might be better.
Anyhow, I don't think I ever came up with a 'selfless', 'pre-conception' reason. I was 95% sure I wanted to do it (my husband was cool with it, too) but I just couldn't make that last part of me certain.
If you intentionally get pregnant, then no, I don't think there is a reason that isn't selfish. I think that's OK though - I think it's OK to be a little selfish occasionally.
I asked my mother this question and she said no! There is no selfless reason for making babies because the act of making them is selfish in the first place i.e sex..someone always gets pleasure out of it so there for is done for selfish reasons...
I love my mother always straight to the point!
My self I think no we have babies to because we want them in our bellies we want to be pregnant we want to love them and care for them..we make them smile for our own selfish reasons(who doesn't love to see a happy smiling baby)!
I have never found a selfless reason.
These responses are so interesting! Yes, striving to be a great parent is selfless and I know so many of us who are even just expecting are already doing that to an extent ... but I'm talking pre-conception. I still can't think of anything! I think the closest thing I've seen is adding productive members to society - but even then, that's selfless for society to an extent (because you just never know how your kid will turn out - nature vs. nurture) but that's not selfless for the life you're creating, right?
So in light of you asking your mom, I asked my dad ... he said "because God commands us to." It sounds so simple, and of course religious (he's a pastor), but I think that's a pretty compelling selfless reason. God tells us to be fruitful and multiply, so I guess if you take it literally then parents who procreate aren't being selfish.
Well after I thought about it God Commands Us would be my answer also...
Is it quality or quantity that is the issue here? How many is too many? How few is enough? — apokrisis
Existence is the wound that can't be healed. — apokrisis
In nature, wounds heal. — apokrisis
And some folk believe that. Which makes antinatalism another religion. In the face of all the evidence to the contrary about nature, it requires an act of faith to sustain antinatalism as a system of belief. — apokrisis
And it seems to me that you (or the hypothetical you) is wearing rose-tinted glasses here. One ought to remember that for every pleasant picnic at the park, there's such a degree of suffering that exists in the world that one's best and only choice is to ignore the vast majority of it. No one with a well-cultivated conscience could go on living if the weight of the world's suffering was in their mind as much as it probably should be. This angling toward life rather than suffering, I'd argue, means that people are naturally disposed to procreation as being instep with their own will to live. — Buxtebuddha
Also, love is not certain in life. A couple may intend well in having a child or children, but in my opinion the only way that you'd be able to get away with mere good intentions is to equate existence with love. As I believe Thorongil mentioned before, you're kind of forced to preach a Thomistic approach, where existence (being) and essence (love) aren't disparate - meaning that the essence of procreation is love, thus procreation is morally permissible! I do not, however, equate being with love, which explains why I'm not a Christian and why I don't find it justifiable to procreate.
Additionally, and going back to the bit I quoted of you, I would agree that raising a child/children is a gift, a good gift, but the having of them I don't find on the same moral footing. To say that having a child is a gift means that the child must agree with your judgement of them, otherwise you've failed in giving your sense of life and goodness to your child. However, were I and my spouse to not have a child, but only raise one, our judgement of our child as being a gift is not dependent upon the child's acceptance of our view because we were not ingredient in their willed creation. In other words, if you have a child and label them a gift, and that child completely disagrees and decides later to kill themselves, would you still say with an earnest heart that their life, which ended in misery and suicide, was a gift? If after such a tragedy no sorrow finds you and you proclaim to the heavens what a great gift your child's life was to have ended that way, I would struggle to find a more selfish and twisted perspective.
Lastly, the picture that comes to mind for me when thinking about procreation is children falling into an ocean. Some will learn to swim, some will drown. Some will swim and find dry land, some will swim a ways but give up. You can give the child a rope, a life vest, a granola bar - things that can represent good parenting - but none of it, in my opinion, is enough to justify the throwing of children into an ocean in the first place. Suffering will find you whether you learned how to swim, found land, founded an empire. I think it is Schopenhauer who argued rather peculiarly that suffering, not happiness, is what marks the world for compassion. In this way, or at least how I view it, one rather paradoxically lives for suffering in order to love, as opposed to loving so as not to suffer. To me, that puts everyone in the same "boat" or ocean. The fact that some find love and compassion doesn't actually matter if suffering is the mean.
I didn't give an argument, I made a distinction, one that refutes the alleged nonselfish reason for procreation you tried to give. — Thorongil
Quality. And one is too many. It's an argument from principle, as I said. — Thorongil
Yes, but not metaphysical wounds! — Thorongil
Poppycock, I say. But if you really believe this, then you implicitly allow antinatalism in through the backdoor, for if morality is inherently subjective, you have no means of disputing the antinatalist on moral grounds. — Thorongil
procreation might be good from an Indian religious perspective in that it extricates someone from being in a hell realm or some other deleterious samsaric plane of existence. — Thorongil
It doesn't even leave room to value the possibility of a growth in civilised selfhood. It is monotonic and obsessive in its complaints.
It does follow its own particular logic to its end, but that remains - in my view, based on larger naturalistic arguments - a caricature of the rich world it pretends to represent. — apokrisis
So again, if naturalism is true, antinatalism fails. Nothing has really changed. We just have to decide whose metaphysics we believe. — apokrisis
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.