-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Having children seems immoral to me...
- Thread starter braves01
- Start date
- Status
umop_3pisdn
Member
Personally I think if you replace the word 'suffering' with 'dissatisfaction', then he would be right. Even joy is dissatisfying if we're clinging to something impermanent because we know it will end, while the reverse is not true (dissatisfaction is not satisfying). But then that also alters his argument as life is what it is regardless of how satisfied we are, so then it is our responsibility to find satisfaction in imperfect circumstances and it places the agency on us.
The OP seems to be open to the idea that most of humanity could come out at the end of life with more 'happiness' than 'sadness', a net positive. I'm not seeing where he is saying humans are a net negative overall. Even if he was/is, it would be hard to disprove or prove that idea either way.
I don't think he could come to such a conclusion purely from his experiences, there is too much information in the world and media showing negatives around the world, and the positives to, that it would effect how he felt. It is possible he is depressed, but I wouldn't take anything he said particularly as an indicator. He seems to have come to a somewhat depressing conclusion (Humans that are born will suffer) and is actually looking for reasons to believe prorating is worth it, this shows hope, which is certainly a good sign, though does not disprove the idea they are depressed.
He could also say he has trouble remembering things, that is a symptom of depression to, but it is not what I would jump to. (Obviously something like that has different almost un-calculable weighting compared to 'saying things' that could be signs of depression.)
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Just because you know something is impermanent, doesn't mean that you can't be satisfied by it. For some, the realization of the impermanence of existence allows them to appreciate what they have.
umop_3pisdn
Member
It's more about the disparity between a conceptual understanding and experiential awareness. Directly seeing impermanence in everything is actually the means to finding contentment, so you're right. But when we're living moment to moment we're generally subject to the delusion of permanence in how we approach or view our experience even though conceptually we know everything is impermanent.
Trent Strong
Banned
Satisfaction and appreciation are impermanent.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Except the kind resulting from seeing impermanence everywhere (or eliminating greed, hatred, and delusion), apparently. Though in that instance I think the meaning of 'permanent' contentment or satisfaction is that there are no conceivable set of circumstances that would diminish it, not that you like live forever or anything; more that just in old age, sickness, and death you're not in danger of losing it.
He said multiple times throughout the thread that he thinks suffering usually outweighs joy. I don't know if he's actually depressed, but that's where these posters are coming from. *shrug*
Honestly, it seems to me that the OP has several entangled ideas here:
-suffering outweighs joy
-conscious existence has no inherent value in and of itself
-consent trumps all
It's this last that's the real sticking point, since obviously consent is absolutely impossible in this case. A non-existent person can't consent, so if consent is a prerequisite to existence, you will necessarily come to the conclusion that nothing can exist, ever.
People are arguing more with the first two than with the last, but it's probably easier to tease out all the threads and see where the real disagreement is; I think it's in that last point.
So here's an interesting thought problem for the OP: a man is in an accident and slips into a coma. The only way to bring him out of the coma is medical intervention; without it, he will never regain consciousness and will eventually die.
You can't possibly receive consent for this intervention, and he's already not conscious. In waking him up, you would be doing something analogous to having a child: creating consciousness where there was none, without consent.
Do you wake him up, or let him die?
Yeah but if you don't give birth you deny them the chance to exist, without giving them the chance to consent to their non-existance.
I can't see where he is saying that. He is simply saying the risk, based on suffering and death being highly probably and joy being only possible, that an overall net negative would not be surprising. is that incorrect? He may have drawn the conclusion for now that humans are net negative but he has shown to be very open mined to evidence and ideas that demonstrate otherwise.
His quotes:
This is the only possibly worrying thing I see:
Wanting to be dead can be a very sensible and logical thing to want, not wanting to of ever existed is a different matter.
I ask the OP: Why would you rather not have been born?
To answer your 'threads':
- I don't think anyone can show that humanity overall is a net negative or positive, there is simply not, and will almost certainly never be, enough data to draw that conclusion for the whole of human history. All you can do is see why people draw a conclusion to one side, the other, or neutral.
- Conscious existence only has value to other conscious beings. I think it means we should be more responsible for our existence. Most animals can't choose to ignore their natural instinct to reproduce, but we humans can, and that caries some responsibility, not only to ourselves, but I believe to all living species.
- Since we have created morals, consent is important. An egg and sperm can not give consent to become life, so they (the humans containing them) shouldn't bring life into the world.
Having children isn't immoral in itself.
The only thing that could be immoral is "wanting" any.
It's a tricky qustion. First of, what is moral? Does it excist? Who decides if something if moral or not? Also, possibly different cultures = different views?
Anyway, very interesting thread.
The thing is, "putting someone into excistence" is always something without choice for that being.
It's hard to say whether or not that being, looking back on his/her life on the day they die, where happy to have excisted or not.
Aren't all children born by selfish motifs, no? Is it immoral to be selfish? If yes, the answer is yes.
But "having a baby", can it even be good/right or bad/wrong.
Let's say you could give birth to a human being with the knowlege that it would be 100% happy and live a great live? - would you? Would it be a "good/right" thing to do?
Let's say you could give birth to a human being with the knowledge that it would be 100% unhappy and live a very poor life, which he/she would regret? - would you? would it be "bad/wrong"?
Let's say you could the it knowing your baby would have the a 50% chance of being either happy or unhappy or regret their life/suffer a lot. - would you?
Last one. Let's say you could give birth to a human being, not knowing what will happen at all. - would you?
More important question. Can it be measured to what chance someone will lead a good/happy life?
If it can be measured somehow than it wouldn't be immoral - I think - to give birth to a human being.
So it's hard to say if it's "immoral". What I can say is, there are circumstances under which you definitely shouldn't give birth to a human being because it would be irresponsible to do so. So in a way I believe it is somehow possible to make that calculation, it's just easier to tell - I guess - when to NOT give birth to a human being as opposed to the opposite.
Man, Philosophy is hard shit!
Let's end this with the follwing sentence: If two people love each other (truly), are financially, mentally, and (possibly physically?) in a good state to be responsible parents, and really would like to have children because they truly believe their lives would be better and more meaningfull with such, then it wouldn't be immoral?
How about that?
The only thing that could be immoral is "wanting" any.
It's a tricky qustion. First of, what is moral? Does it excist? Who decides if something if moral or not? Also, possibly different cultures = different views?
Anyway, very interesting thread.
The thing is, "putting someone into excistence" is always something without choice for that being.
It's hard to say whether or not that being, looking back on his/her life on the day they die, where happy to have excisted or not.
Aren't all children born by selfish motifs, no? Is it immoral to be selfish? If yes, the answer is yes.
But "having a baby", can it even be good/right or bad/wrong.
Let's say you could give birth to a human being with the knowlege that it would be 100% happy and live a great live? - would you? Would it be a "good/right" thing to do?
Let's say you could give birth to a human being with the knowledge that it would be 100% unhappy and live a very poor life, which he/she would regret? - would you? would it be "bad/wrong"?
Let's say you could the it knowing your baby would have the a 50% chance of being either happy or unhappy or regret their life/suffer a lot. - would you?
Last one. Let's say you could give birth to a human being, not knowing what will happen at all. - would you?
More important question. Can it be measured to what chance someone will lead a good/happy life?
If it can be measured somehow than it wouldn't be immoral - I think - to give birth to a human being.
So it's hard to say if it's "immoral". What I can say is, there are circumstances under which you definitely shouldn't give birth to a human being because it would be irresponsible to do so. So in a way I believe it is somehow possible to make that calculation, it's just easier to tell - I guess - when to NOT give birth to a human being as opposed to the opposite.
Man, Philosophy is hard shit!
Let's end this with the follwing sentence: If two people love each other (truly), are financially, mentally, and (possibly physically?) in a good state to be responsible parents, and really would like to have children because they truly believe their lives would be better and more meaningfull with such, then it wouldn't be immoral?
How about that?universalmind
Member
ffs
lawlohwhat
Banned
Okay, you're not coming across very clearly. I'm assuming that you are saying -
Evil is not necessarily immoral
Since evil is not necessarily immoral, events that are ascribed an evil character are not necessarily immoral
Therefore, evil is an inappropriate descriptor, in this case
To your first premise, that is a fair enough point in a discussion that is as broad as the one we are having here, but there is a common sense opinion that the capacity to do good and evil is very strongly correlated with the capacity to act justly or immorally. I think most people would agree to that without question.
Could we just stipulate to your opinion that the infliction of suffering is immoral? If so, I don't see how that changes the impact of my reply.
The problem with your second point here is that you do not assume a thrownness into the world in your belief that we are pure agents of individuality. But we are given life, and some capacity for seeing the reality of our being, which is afforded by a human consciousness. We are also impossibly dependent upon other beings to center ourselves. Could you imagine a world where you are conscious, but everything else is nothingness? What would you be conscious about?
Both the unborn and the born cannot give consent to exist, because to deny existence would be an act of existence. The unborn cannot consent to consent, and if someone were to deny their birth, they would never consent to anything, thus their autonomy would be irrelevant.
It is an interesting, and surprisingly internally consistent position to take, but you must assume that thrownness into existence is necessarily immoral in all cases. I can think of at least one case where that argument fails, which is the case of my own life.
Moral and ethical questions arise only after birth and the development of conceptual thinking and language. Existence has primacy. Being-as-such does not need an ethical imperative because being-as-such is not a case of ethical concern, it is simply the case of being in its groundless infinitude.
yeah sure: http://www.breathingearth.net/
Looks like things are getting better to me.
Sure bringing planned parenthood and education will help third world countries tremendously. But do we really want to bring our wasteful mentalities to those countries as well. I read somewhere that one American citizen uses as much resources as 30 Indian citizens. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita But why would anyone care the earth is just a big rock after all. Who cares if your future children will have to deal with depleted resources. You want children so that they might experience that happiness you feel in your life. It's just a natural thing we humans have to do right?
eddfromtheriver
Banned
Actually i agree with the OP, add to that the state of the world right now, and the future not looking so bright ( low water reserves, food scarceness, us killing the enviroment, people getting crazy... er) and i can't help but to concur, i would've personally preferred not to be born had i been given the option.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Yes. Why? The internet.
Its been a while since the last world war. I actually have a bright outlook on the world. Perhaps if you were in some horrendous nation without any human rights, then bearing a child may be a problem.
shanshan310
Member
Since it can't be done, I think the answer must be that people shouldn't have kids, unless there is some overriding concern that humanity must be preserved. However, when the human population is straining the earth's capacity as it is now, I think the only moral thing to do for would-be parents is to adopt.
Edit: I'd be fine at parties where contraception is used
You're not grateful that your parents gave you the sentience to consider this? I'm still not understanding what is immoral about it at all.
Also for parents to adopt children still have to be 'forced into the world', by your own standards. How would this make it better?
StrangeADT
Banned
If introductory philosophy gets you this down, you need to drop out of university now. Tougher times are ahead.
Barbacoatl
Banned
¡Why don't you think like me op!
I don't plan on having kids (or being stuck in a relationship as a result) but I never considered getting a vasectomy until now. Thanks op.
I don't plan on having kids (or being stuck in a relationship as a result) but I never considered getting a vasectomy until now. Thanks op.
Devolution
Member
Once you meet the right person you want to see stupid little versions of them.
I'm Not sure what you're particularly suggesting here.
My "ideal" is a higher standard of living for everyone. And technological advancement tasked at reducing our carbon footprint, reduce on planet mining and generally make everyone as happy as possible.
There really is no other realistic alternative.
Being a component of a living thing is one of the most miraculous and rare states of being matter can be in.
The stuff you talk about, is the reason why having children means you are responsible for making that person grow up into someone who makes the world better and doesn't feel miserable. I'm so happy to be alive, so maybe that's where I'm coming from, but I certainly had a turbulent 22 years or so before I found inner peace. To me, it's worth it.
My wife and I don't have a kid, but I don't think it's inherently selfish to create life... as long as you aren't just trying to raise little sheltered clones of yourself, but rather a person who makes a difference for others.... even a small few.
The stuff you talk about, is the reason why having children means you are responsible for making that person grow up into someone who makes the world better and doesn't feel miserable. I'm so happy to be alive, so maybe that's where I'm coming from, but I certainly had a turbulent 22 years or so before I found inner peace. To me, it's worth it.
My wife and I don't have a kid, but I don't think it's inherently selfish to create life... as long as you aren't just trying to raise little sheltered clones of yourself, but rather a person who makes a difference for others.... even a small few.
ThisWreckage
Banned
I share your philosophy and I've said the same thing for years. Having children satiates the ego. Nothing more. Thrusting a human into this world without previous knowledge of this world is a selfish act.
Telling someone that he should see a doctor and making armchair observations about his mental state simply because his philosophy doesn't fall in line with your "rainbow and sunshine" philosophy is offensive as hell to me.
Well, in principle you could, but it would be a tough task, practically speaking. I think most people generalize from how they feel themselves and what they see around them in family and friends. So I, for example, feel like life is generally pretty good even if it's not always awesome and has a few bumps.
Well yes, but we are conscious beings. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Our morality is based on what we value, and so (for most of us) conscious existence is viewed as a moral good.
Depends on which moral philosophers you look at, and I don't think many would see it as so important that it trumps everything else. *shrug*
Eppy Thatcher
God's had his chance.
The only immoral aspect is the fact that all children are insidious sociopaths who will do nothing but drag your life downwards at the speed of poop.
Love my little girl with all my heart. I fucking hate being a dad.
Love my little girl with all my heart. I fucking hate being a dad.
GremlinFool
Member
This thread provides ample evidence that ceaseless mind noodling and deconstruction/distillation of morality leads inevitably to fallacious nihilistic conclusions that cannot possibly be concomitant with empirical reality.
~Consent is an illusory social construct. It's illusory for the same reasons that "free will" is illusory. The behavior of human beings is restricted to a pre-defined set of actions determined by probabilistic neural interactions in the brain and constraints imposed by the environment. Consent implies agreement after introspection and questioning of the self with full awareness. The mere fact that our actions are predicated on probabilistic chemical reactions in our brain, that identical physical milieu can lead to two wildly different choices based on the presupposed notion of consent, demonstrates that humanity cannot have full control over their actions, even when afforded perfect liberty and personal sovereignty.
~The topic presupposes not existing is normatively superior to experiencing suffering in life. How could we possibly know whether "not existing" is superior to existing with pain? We could not possibly experience both and compare the two. The nature of not existing extinguishes the possibility of comprehending what not existing even entails. We exist, and tautologically we can't ever appreciate the counterfactual of not existing. As a result, this speculative argument is fundamentally fallacious: we're imputing personal biases on a concept not grounded in reality. By default, we must assume that life (in the way we understand it, i.e. sentience) is the preferred outcome, because any other interpretation simply doesn't mesh with observed reality.
When taking these two into account, the argument rapidly erodes. This hypothetical notion of consent breaks down when considering the fact that consent is wholly amoral. If we want to talk about consent in the abstract (which is what the OP is attempting to do), then we have to distill consent to its purest form, which is a probabilistic model of human behavior constricted by physical laws. If this issue is somehow resolved cogently by the OP, he still needs to explain how he could possibly determine the superiority of a counterfactual that cannot be experienced.
~Consent is an illusory social construct. It's illusory for the same reasons that "free will" is illusory. The behavior of human beings is restricted to a pre-defined set of actions determined by probabilistic neural interactions in the brain and constraints imposed by the environment. Consent implies agreement after introspection and questioning of the self with full awareness. The mere fact that our actions are predicated on probabilistic chemical reactions in our brain, that identical physical milieu can lead to two wildly different choices based on the presupposed notion of consent, demonstrates that humanity cannot have full control over their actions, even when afforded perfect liberty and personal sovereignty.
~The topic presupposes not existing is normatively superior to experiencing suffering in life. How could we possibly know whether "not existing" is superior to existing with pain? We could not possibly experience both and compare the two. The nature of not existing extinguishes the possibility of comprehending what not existing even entails. We exist, and tautologically we can't ever appreciate the counterfactual of not existing. As a result, this speculative argument is fundamentally fallacious: we're imputing personal biases on a concept not grounded in reality. By default, we must assume that life (in the way we understand it, i.e. sentience) is the preferred outcome, because any other interpretation simply doesn't mesh with observed reality.
When taking these two into account, the argument rapidly erodes. This hypothetical notion of consent breaks down when considering the fact that consent is wholly amoral. If we want to talk about consent in the abstract (which is what the OP is attempting to do), then we have to distill consent to its purest form, which is a probabilistic model of human behavior constricted by physical laws. If this issue is somehow resolved cogently by the OP, he still needs to explain how he could possibly determine the superiority of a counterfactual that cannot be experienced.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I much prefer the posts deconstructing the OP's argument and giving rebuttals, over the ones that just ridicule him.
Always-honest
Banned
Forgive me if I am miss understanding anything, or lacking some knowledge to have such discussion properly, I don't often have debates at this level.
I think people in places where they have access to things like the internet or news (Be that papers, tv, radio) have a much wider base to base a generalization of how humanity is overall, net negative or positive. Obviously the media has a lot more negative than happy news and this can bias a view. Where as I think the poor people in places like Africa only have what they can see around them in themselves, family, friends and what they are told. A much more limited scope.
Based on my life I would say it has been pretty good to, but it would be hard for me to back up how I think the whole world is overall, i might favour one opinion but I would have to say 'I don't know'.
I'm saying that to say most other animals, the fact humans are conscious bare's no value really, only the results of our conciousness can hold value to them. (I may be wrong here, I am stepping a little outside my knowledge). People may value their consciousness but I don't see why it then becomes a moral good. Morals are notoriously complicated, for example abortion could be called morally good, but is also often seen as morally bad.
I think this consent point is quite important, in the case of wanting to have a child, to you, what is consent trumping? If it is trumping the natural instinct to want to reproduce, I see no problem, we go against natural paths all the time (Organ transplants for example) Though you can argue we are natural, so therefore that is natural. If it is trumping the selfish want to have a kid for your own happiness then well that is kind of the debate of the thread, is it moral to have a child knowing it will almost certainly suffer at some point in it's life.
I think people in places where they have access to things like the internet or news (Be that papers, tv, radio) have a much wider base to base a generalization of how humanity is overall, net negative or positive. Obviously the media has a lot more negative than happy news and this can bias a view. Where as I think the poor people in places like Africa only have what they can see around them in themselves, family, friends and what they are told. A much more limited scope.
Based on my life I would say it has been pretty good to, but it would be hard for me to back up how I think the whole world is overall, i might favour one opinion but I would have to say 'I don't know'.
I'm saying that to say most other animals, the fact humans are conscious bare's no value really, only the results of our conciousness can hold value to them. (I may be wrong here, I am stepping a little outside my knowledge). People may value their consciousness but I don't see why it then becomes a moral good. Morals are notoriously complicated, for example abortion could be called morally good, but is also often seen as morally bad.
I think this consent point is quite important, in the case of wanting to have a child, to you, what is consent trumping? If it is trumping the natural instinct to want to reproduce, I see no problem, we go against natural paths all the time (Organ transplants for example) Though you can argue we are natural, so therefore that is natural. If it is trumping the selfish want to have a kid for your own happiness then well that is kind of the debate of the thread, is it moral to have a child knowing it will almost certainly suffer at some point in it's life.
Indeed. The joy that does exist, is only a result of scratching an itch. An itch that shouldn't have to be there in the first place.
All of this goes against the presupposition, most people seem to have, that life is a good thing. It would only be logical that most people have this bias, but this bias is wrong.
This view is not a pessimistic view. It's a realistic view of the world and the world just isn't a nice place. People should realize that their relatively good lives are an exception and that their limited and exaggerated moments of joy do not weigh up to all of the suffering. I don't know what people think the human race, or life for that matter, is achieving that is worth all this suffering.
Guys.
Guys.
Guys.
Listen.
Guys...come on...
Isn't it like...immoral to be, you know, alive? Think about it. Odds are our existence does more bad than good to the world. Most probably if you post here , you are living in a 1st world country or even worse, you are part of the elite of a developing/non-developping country, which means there's is someone, somewhere, that is suffering so you can spend your time on gaf and afford your vegan food, your new ipad, and your fifth 3DS because you like colours. We produce massive amounts of waste and many of us live in countries that treat the politics in other countries like goddamn games.
Guys.
Guys.
Listen.
Guys...come on...
Isn't it like...immoral to be, you know, alive? Think about it. Odds are our existence does more bad than good to the world. Most probably if you post here , you are living in a 1st world country or even worse, you are part of the elite of a developing/non-developping country, which means there's is someone, somewhere, that is suffering so you can spend your time on gaf and afford your vegan food, your new ipad, and your fifth 3DS because you like colours. We produce massive amounts of waste and many of us live in countries that treat the politics in other countries like goddamn games.
wow....
creationtheory
Member
Probably because it wasn't his fault the adopted child was forced into the world. Personally I think having children is selfish, not immoral.
Winterfang
Banned
How is it selfish?
Yeah, I would love to know hwy it's selfish.
Deal.
This post wins.
I'd like to add that life would undoubtedly be superior if we lived in a non-society where we were too busy thinking about survival to think about morals, because then we'd be in a perfect state of equilibrium with our surroundings and do no unneccessary harm to anyone or anything. That's the most moral thing to do, isn't it?
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
http://www.abolitionist.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_(bioethics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
Usually, antinatalism is defended on (negative) utilitarian grounds, not consent.
(Basically, it's a minimax strategy... minimizing the maximum loss. This strategy is, generally speaking, actually irrational if you take the Savage axioms as representing rationality...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_(bioethics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
Usually, antinatalism is defended on (negative) utilitarian grounds, not consent.
(Basically, it's a minimax strategy... minimizing the maximum loss. This strategy is, generally speaking, actually irrational if you take the Savage axioms as representing rationality...)
Rich Uncle Skeleton
Member
The OP seems to make two different arguments here:
*Nietzsche asked a related question if I remember correctly: If you could choose, at the end of your life, to have your memory wiped, and live it all over again -- same mistakes, same joys and loves and losses -- would you?
- The life of a human (born into, say, a first-world, middle class, healthy, responsible family) is a bad risk-reward proposition. So that a reasonable person, if given the choice on their death bed between being reincarnated (into such a family) or being unconscious forever, would choose the latter.*
- Even if one does not personally accept (1), giving birth is wrong, because the child cannot in principle give consent to be created.
*Nietzsche asked a related question if I remember correctly: If you could choose, at the end of your life, to have your memory wiped, and live it all over again -- same mistakes, same joys and loves and losses -- would you?
creationtheory
Member
It's selfish because there are so many kids out there that need to be adopted. That should be obvious...
teruterubozu
Member
Masturbating is true altruism.
I think its quite worrying that our population continues to increase while resources diminish as a result for increased demand. Bringing your own children into the world is essentially to satisfy your own selfish desires, to carry on your bloodline, to achieve what you couldn't etc. Not saying its wrong, but it is for self satisfaction. One particularly annoying trend is teenage mothers that decide "hey I don't want to contribute anything, so I'll pop out a bunch of resource hogging kids instead" If you can't support these children, don't fucking have them.
shanshan310
Member
Those are some reasons people have children. Not all reasons people have children are selfish. What about bringing someone into the world to show them the wonders it holds? Many first world country's populations are in decline, or would be without immigration. Teenagers dropping out of school to have kids and live on government support are far outside the norm.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
How's that not selfish?
One of the greatest joys of being a parent is witnessing the world through the new perspective that is your child.
The reason people have kids are not some sort of utilitarian thinking, in an attempt to rectify the birth rate of the nation
.shanshan310
Member
How's that not selfish?
One of the greatest joys of being a parent is witnessing the world through the new perspective that is your child.
The reason people have kids are not some sort of utilitarian thinking, in an attempt to rectify the birth rate of the nation
How is it selfish? If I just wanted to witness the world through a new perspective I could find someone with a different outlook on life and follow them around. Birth is giving someone the opportunity to experience living.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked