• Luke1i1
    14
    Hi all

    So I have a question which I am hoping someone can shed some light on.

    Assuming generally people say it is "right" or "good" to help to help others I want you to consider the following situation. Say we have 100 people in society (the number is not particularly relevant) and 20 of those live a life not worth living. Lets suppose these 20 people decide not to have children as they could not cope with the upbringing (again the reason is not particularly relevant as long as it is linked to their poor health or living conditions etc.).
    If we improve the living conditions of those people (in essence doing something which society would consider "good") or somehow make them happy by helping them some of those people may then decide to have children. We will then have a greater amount of people in society (Lets say 110 for this argument).
    At first glance this is not a bad nor good thing it just is what it is. However with more people in society there will also be more people living a life not worth living. Basically if let's say 20% of the population are always unhappy regardless of the amount of people in the world then by increasing the population we are increasing the amount who are unhappy. Basically by helping people who would not normally have children we are increasing the liklihood that some of them will have offspring. With a greater population we will also have more people who are unhappy (20% of 100 people is obviously far less then 20% of 1000). Therefore how can we say we are ultimately doing more good than harm of more people are going to suffer?

    Hopefully this makes sense?

    Many thanks
  • Athena
    3.2k
    I am glad in are pondering the notion that children need good parents. They also need good educations and until 1917 education was all about citizenship, not about preparing the young to be products for industry. Vocational training was added in 1917. At the 1917 National Education Association Conference, Sara Fahey a teacher of English, speaks of how we educate the children knowing their immigrant parents will learn from them how to become good American citizens. At this time education rested on Thomas Jefferson's ideas of the education we must have to be a strong and united Republic.

    Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we have the right to pursue happiness. This did not mean going out for ice cream or smoking pot or whatever else we might do for a moment of fun. Jefferson's understanding of happiness was based on Greek philosophy and the notion that our happiness rests on knowledge and so does our moral judgment. And he was speaking with knowledge of Christian governments that suppressed knowledge and established a hierarchy of authority over the people. Effectively education for technology suppresses the essential knowledge because it is not the education we must have to understand what knowledge has to do with our liberty and happiness and feeling empowered to have meaningful lives, instead of feeling powerless and worthless.

    While education was changed in 1917 it continued to transmit our culture for liberty and self-government until 1958. I think our focus needs to be on how we prepare our young for life through public education, and why it is the right thing to give them breakfast and lunch and medical care.

    Leaving people on the streets to die, hoping this will prevent them from reproducing, cannot accomplish as much as the right education preparing children for citizenship can accomplish.
  • Luke1i1
    14
    Hi Athena

    Thank you for your response. I do wonder what influence being happy does for the amount of offspring people tend to have. E.g. do more happy people have less children?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.