Why? — Heister Eggcart
It's a view which has similarities to the doctrine of Original Sin. We humans exist because our ancestors procreated through the ages. There was no Adam and Eve, but sometime in the course of our evolution a pair or pairs of sinners reproduced and that reproduction caused the many harms we existing people now experience. — Ciceronianus the White
I have no problem with you not having children. It's none of my business what your reason is. But to justify it on the basis of the welfare of the unborn child, if that's what you're really doing, is bizarre. — T Clark
I'm not an anti-natalist anymore in part because the argument from consent, which you present here, doesn't work. It's incoherent, as Agustino said, and pointing out the obvious fact that no one is being harmed in procreation is not a rhetorical trick. Do the parents cause their child to exist? Yes, but causation does not equal compulsion. One can only compel, coerce, or force, and therefore harm, the existent, not the non-existent. — Thorongil
When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. — schopenhauer1
When the child is born it is forced. — schopenhauer1
A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. — schopenhauer1
When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy. — schopenhauer1
What's the inescapable position? :s Life isn't an inescapable position. Things in life can be inescapable positions, but certainly not life, which is the stage which makes all inescapable positions possible in the first place.Because I believe forcing someone to be in a (practically) inescapable position to do something or not that is ongoing is harmful. — schopenhauer1
So what if it's automatic? It's still a necessity. For some people doing the laundry is automatic. Apparently not for you. That's what your real problem is, that you invest so much energy dealing with such basic chores of life.Breathing, is usually automatic. Perhaps you should have used eating. Eating is optional — schopenhauer1
Again the chair doesn't exist before it's actually made (the form of the chair exists, and the matter from which the chair will be made, but not the chair). The chair is a combination of matter and form to speak in Aristotelian terms. A child in this case would also be a combination of matter (the body) and form (the soul), and a child begins to exist at a certain point in time. Prior to that point in time, the child did not exist. So yes, the child was caused to exist by an external force, so what? More correctly, the matter and form of the child were conjoined in one substance by an external force (notice how both form, and matter existed before by the way). Being caused to exist cannot be a harm, because all harms happen AFTER the moment of birth, not before. No harm can happen before birth. To suggest otherwise is silly.When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy. — schopenhauer1
So a person apparently has interests before they're even born... good one.However, exposing new people to unwanted, unpleasant work in order to survive and function properly (though necessary once born) is not good for the interest of a future possible person who will have to endure it. — schopenhauer1
You disagree, but I agree with you. It depends where you place the moment of birth. If you place the moment of birth at conception (and I would probably agree with that, or at least I would place it close to conception) then yes of course a lot of harm can happen while the live baby (who is hence already born, otherwise he couldn't be alive) is in his mother's womb.I disagree. I think no harm can happen before conception. Plenty of harm can happen before one is born. — Thorongil
Yes, I thought exactly this, so thank you for clarifying this directly. I realised as I was writing it, but felt too lazy to bother changing the terminology granted that schop1 was using this terminology himself. But I did notice that my argument could then be taken and used as a pro-abortion argument, by claiming that no one is harmed until they're born (taking birth to be leaving the mother's womb) and I totally disagree with that. So thank you once again, well spotted! :) (Y)Thus, it's actually an indirect argument for abortion, not for the immorality of procreation. — Thorongil
So, I think one can intelligibly maintain that we shouldn't have children because they'll become subject to harm if we do. It's not a position I accept, but it's comprehensible at least. — Ciceronianus the White
Nope, that again doesn't follow. Procreation isn't necessarily immoral, but it can be. Should you procreate when you're in a war-torn country, where you probably will have a hard time to assure the survival of your child or provide for them? Probably not.Yes, I agree with this, but I do not believe I was NOT saying this. AFTER the child is born it is forced into obligations. Obligations are harmful and inevitable. Procreation creates this condition. Ergo, procreating children is wrong as it leads to exposing a new person to inevitable and harmful ongoing, inescapable obligations. — schopenhauer1
Agreed.The harm we may experience after we exist has identifiable causes for the most part. People, animals, nature may cause harm to us once we live. We may ascribe fault to them for doing so. We're not harmed by coming into existence, but are subject to harm when we do. — Ciceronianus the White
Again, you need actual concrete reasons of what harms your child will become subject to. If you're not having a child because there's a war going on and it's unlikely you'll be able to take care of them that's completely different from not having a child because there's some harm - which you cannot specify - that will occur to him in his life.So, I think one can intelligibly maintain that we shouldn't have children because they'll become subject to harm if we do. — Ciceronianus the White
It depends where you place the moment of birth. If you place the moment of birth at conception (and I would probably agree with that, or at least I would place it close to conception) then yes of course a lot of harm can happen while the live baby (who is hence already born, otherwise he couldn't be alive) is in his mother's womb. — Agustino
Procreation isn't necessarily immoral, but it can be. — Agustino
No, it's absolutely not. If you have a child in a war torn region, giving birth to them isn't wrong, but failure to protect them when they need it, that will be wrong.But based on my premise, it is valid. — schopenhauer1
I am not saying we should not follow obligations as the economic system requires to not fall apart, but rather that it should not be something to force others into. — schopenhauer1
No, it's absolutely not. If you have a child in a war torn region, giving birth to them isn't wrong, but failure to protect them when they need it, that will be wrong. — Agustino
If you do absolutely nothing and just plug 1 billion in the bank, how long do you think it will last? :s More than your own lifespan? Probably. Why don't rich people do that? Because it's not fulfilling.So rich people have no economic obligations? They have their own obligations not to mention being on top of the very economic system where the economic obligations take place. — schopenhauer1
I agree. No forcing anyone to do anything. Also, adult behavior needs to be reviewed to best understand the spirit of such a view. We're not behaving well - inventing WMD, polluting the environment, waging wars, perpetuating systems as mentioned in the OP, etc etc. And still we bring children into this world. The reasons for doing that are literally vanishing into thin air while reasons for not are multiplying everyday. — TheMadFool
If you do absolutely nothing and just plug 1 billion in the bank, how long do you think it will last? :s More than your own lifespan? Probably. Why don't rich people do that? Because it's not fulfilling. — Agustino
Sure, you need another argument, that's for sure.While it's true for 1% of people they, do not have to worry about economic obligations in the same way others do, there are other harms- some of them are structural. — schopenhauer1
Sure, you need another argument, that's for sure. — Agustino
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.