It can’t be conception because there as yet no human being to impose upon. It cannot be in gestation because the child is being nurtured and nourished in a life-sustaining environment, without which is suffering and death. Should the mother worry about his consent as he dines on her placenta? Is it the cutting of the umbilical cord? It goes away naturally anyways. Breast feeding? Diaper changing? Imagine the child’s well-being if we didn’t do any of the above. — NOS4A2
Which act is the imposition, then? — NOS4A2
It can’t be conception because there as yet no human being to impose upon. — NOS4A2
There is loss and suffering in many conceivable future states. But someone could just as easily conceive of future states containing joy and pleasure and make the same sort of leap that birth causes pleasure. — NOS4A2
I just can’t see how refusing to have a child is anything but a self-satisfying endeavor. — NOS4A2
I can’t see that this behavior is ethical and moral insofar as it protects someone or alleviates anyone’s suffering, because one can do it alone without interacting with a single person his entire life. — NOS4A2
[...] implying that parents are harming their child by conceiving him, birthing him, and nurturing him for a prolonged period of his life is unjust. — NOS4A2
As for the imposition of conception, looking around at the biological processes involved in it I can’t find anyone imposing anything on anyone else. — NOS4A2
In my view, there's nothing self-serving about it, considering the above-mentioned dilemma. — Tzeentch
[...] it is certainly not a ‘selfish’ ploy although it has countless positives with the responsibility it brings. — I like sushi
If one were to accept that child-having is immoral, then refraining from it isn't necessarily a moral deed, but rather neutral, in the same way as for example 'not stealing' is. You probably wouldn't consider someone a moral person simply for 'not stealing'. — Tzeentch
The sad reality is that there are plenty of individuals to whom this may apply.
We simply don't know who they will be before they've lived out their lives, and that's essentially the gamble that a parent takes. — Tzeentch
If not having children amounts to 'avoiding responsibility' that implies we have a responsibility to procreate - I would disagree with that. — Tzeentch
I also dislike the characterization of people as fearful, 'refusing to live', 'zombie state of existence' for asking the question - I think those amount to little more than thinly-veiled personal attacks. — Tzeentch
And it is a little ironic, when in the next sentence you say this about procreation — Tzeentch
As for the claim to be looking out for humans (that do not exist) and assuming that if you view this position as ideal - which I would doubt greatly even if you insisted. — I like sushi
If you had asked to what degree is it justified to creat burdens for others then you have a chance of a reasonable discussion. If that it what was meant I can only answer with ‘it depends’. — I like sushi
The topic is whether or not it is moral to unnecessarily burden someone. — schopenhauer1
Teaching and learning are ‘burdens’. They are necessary ‘burdens’. Think of a courtroom where someone is being sentenced for committing murder … the judge takes into account the circumstances before sentencing there is not a universal sentence for the crime of murder because ‘it depends’ on the situation. — I like sushi
Someone imposing burden X on someone for reason Y is nothing to go off. It is like saying person X committed crime Y then asking whether or not it is ‘just’ to send them to prison for 20 years. It makes no sense to argue against or for this sentence as we have no idea what it is we are talking about. — I like sushi
I am completely fine about that. It is necessary for life (which I am fond of). — I like sushi
If you are talking about projecting this into the future (some imaginary being to be born) then are you willing to project further and admit it is necessary to have children to continue human life? Or would you rather robots produced children to maintain human populations to make you feel better about inflict the gift of life upon the world? — I like sushi
I do like the hypothetical of all people living a good life whilst one suffers utterly and eternally. That makes you think about how powerful an influence ethics can have over something previously deemed ideal/good. — I like sushi
There exists states of affairs where no people are burdened. — schopenhauer1
I don't think that is realistic, but if we live in a complete utopia where even the human condition is not its own worst enemy (boredom leading to more strife), sure. — schopenhauer1
I wouldn't want to burden people to get to a utopia though. — schopenhauer1
Your opinion. You have to accept you are expressing an opinion here rather than offering an iron cast argument that backs up your opinion.
It is ‘wrong’ in your opinion. It is not justified in your opinion.
I cannot really take your opinion that seriously. Yet if you are expressing this as if it is a solid position to hold and holds logical weight, alongside being justifiable, I will just keep saying ‘no’ until you give something other than raw subjective opinions. — I like sushi
The statement that is it flat out wrong to burden anyone with anything is ridiculous. — I like sushi
This is an unnecessary burden, and wrong. It creates the burden in the first place to see someone overcome the burden. It was a burden that didn't need to be created at all. — schopenhauer1
You are not really saying anything. I know the point stems from some extreme antinatalist stance so I am safe to guard against it and prod you to provide some actual reasoning that is not merely an empty opinion. — I like sushi
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.