You have 3 starving people and 2 solutions which do you employ
A: feed them
B: create 100 satiated people such that you create more pleasure/happiness than in A
I think most people would pick A, because B doesn't actually help anyone — khaled
So your rights outweigh the rights of the child you were so vehemently defending moments ago.For instance, if someone held a gun to my head and said "procreate or I kill you" I think it would be within my rights to procreate. — Bartricks
The problem is that you do have to be above a certain IQ level to see this. — Bartricks
So you think that it is so obvious that procreation is ethical that any argument that leads to the contrary conclusion must have a false premise? — Bartricks
That's similar to the intuition, again widely felt, that there is something immoral about homosexual relations. — Bartricks
Yes, in those sorts of scenario we'd have to weigh the importance of not imposing a life on another person versus the good of preventing someone who already exists from starving to death. — Bartricks
If we do not have children (and bring them up to continue our good work), then we will not have fulfilled our moral obligation to the three starving people. — Isaac
But then those same people are apphaled by rapists, murderers, totaitarian governments, terrorist groups, etc..... That's the inconsistency here.
It is ONLY ever the main theme for them when it comes to birth as I’ve asked them to come up with one other example where they think this type of thinking is acceptable and they have yet to come up with one. — khaled
So your rights outweigh the rights of the child you were so vehemently defending moments ago. — Shamshir
And if it isn't worth living - it can stop living and spare itself and its offspring further injury. — Shamshir
Then I'm not imposing natalism — Shamshir
Again, slowly this time: you can only impose something on someone who exists at some point. — Bartricks
There are justifiable grounds to reject that conclusion. I do think that it's obvious to most what those grounds are. It's probably obvious to anti-natalists, too, although they'd of course deny that it's justifiable grounds. — S
I don't follow you. I was simply admitting that though it is in general wrong to procreate, there are circumstances where it may be permissible or even obligatory - such as when procreating is the only way to save one's own life, or the only way to save the lives of numerous others. — Bartricks
Let’s expand on this logic a bit. “If getting raped isn’t worth going through, she can just stop living and spare herself further injury, after all she MIGHT enjoy the experience no? I’ll rape her and give her a chance to make the verdict herself. After all, not raping her would he forcing her to not get raped when she could enjoy it”
Disgusting to even read isn’t it? — khaled
Thus when someone exists without asking to exist, they have been imposed upon to exist. — khaled
First off, the choice is only 100% of suffering if you're an utter wimp who can't defend himself and is scared of dying; to add to which - your assumption that it is inherently bad.No and you’re being willfully blind. In the scenario in question the choice is between 100% chance of severe suffering (and death) or a slight chance of severe suffering for someone else. In this case it is permissible to procreate.
His rights don’t outweigh the child’s but they do have some weight — khaled
It's not about if she gets raped, maimed, burned alive, lynched or whatever.Let’s expand on this logic a bit. “If getting raped isn’t worth going through, she can just stop living and spare herself further injury, after all she MIGHT enjoy the experience no? I’ll rape her and give her a chance to make the verdict herself. After all, not raping her would he forcing her to not get raped when she could enjoy it” — khaled
What about if that someone does want to exist?Thus when someone exists without asking to exist, they have been imposed upon to exist. When no one exists, no one has been imposed upon not to exist. — khaled
This isn't the same scenario, because the person being raped exists beforehand and therefore already has ethical position that would be violated. But what ethical standing to non-existant potential people have? — Echarmion
The phrase "being imposed upon to exist" doesn't make grammatical sense to me. — Echarmion
First off, the choice is only 100% of suffering if you're an utter wimp who can't defend himself — Shamshir
your assumption that it is inherently bad. — Shamshir
Secondly, that's what outweighing means - having weight, precisely more weight — Shamshir
And why do his rights appear to outweigh the child's? — Shamshir
Imagine you want to build a house, but you suddenly start thinking - what if my neighbour burns it down, what if lightning burns it down, what if a tornado blows it away, what if a meteorite falls on top of it? — Shamshir
If you're unwilling to go through and cannot handle the potential trials and tribulations, then quit and stay safe. — Shamshir
What about if that someone does want to exist? — Shamshir
Denying existence to someone who wishes to exist is bad isn't it? — Shamshir
So how do you impose anything, when you don't know anything? — Shamshir
You're deliberating this drivel on behalf of children you won't have, thus children you know nothing about. — Shamshir
You impose your hunger on other lifeforms, consuming them at your leisure to prolong your vitality. — Shamshir
And the irony of it all is that you possess the leisure and amenities to espouse all of this drivel, thanks to all of the natalists prior to you who got you here, only to have you shit on their graves.
You're a narcissistic stick in the mud who wants to play hero, having humanity go extinct — Shamshir
Dying isn’t inherently bad? So murder is ok? — khaled
The whole post is oozing hypocrisy.Yes because it’s my vitality vs theirs — khaled
None. Then again, I’m not claiming having kids harms non existent ghost babies. I’m claiming it risks harming real people. That the real person didn’t exist at the time the action that would harm said real person in the future took place is of no consequence. — khaled
To demonstrate: I’m pretty sure you’d agree that genetically modifying children to suffer more (extra limbs, blindness, etc) is wrong no? Explain to me why that is wrong then you will find that the same explanation could be used to explain why having children with the normal number of limbs is still wrong. — khaled
Grammar doesn’t make or not make sense to individual people first of all, and as far as I know “being imposed upon to exist” makes grammatical sense. Doesn’t “being imposed upon to eat” or “go to school” make sense? — khaled
Is it ethical to have children? — Matias
Bandwagon fallacy? :broken: — TheMadFool
People are entitled to start a family if they so desire. — S
Of course people are free to choose. That's not the issue. It's about the ethics of having children and clearly, if you don't want your child to hurt anyone or get hurt, both of which are inevitable and unethical, then people should NOT have children. — TheMadFool
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.