Support NeoGAF

[Trent Strong]

I am not simply saying you shouldn't ask. I am saying they have no right to choose, just as chickens don't, or cats don't, or carrots don't. We make choices for living things without agency all the time.

What if there was a roller coaster that 85% or people enjoyed riding, but that 15% of people hated riding and wished that they had never started riding in the first place once they are on. Now imagine someone gave you the legal right to decide whether or not to put a man in a coma on this roller coaster knowing that he would wake up from the coma right when the roller coaster started but when it was too late to get off of. Would it be immoral to put this comatose man on the roller coaster without his consent, knowing that there was a 15% chance that he will hate it?

 

[zon]

I said I was going to bed, but...

For.

Edit: Depressed? Not more than the average person I suppose.

This only means that, yes, you are depressed.

 

[Veelk]

but feeling like the negatives of life outweigh the positives SO MUCH that the very idea of bringing a chid into this world seems inherent immoral to you is... not healthy. it seems indicative of some deep issues that are probably worth addressing.

While I don't agree with the guys reasons for why having a child is immoral (in that no life is perfect), the argument that doing so can be made without having any kind of deep issues.

First off, to address an earlier statement you made:

(It's not. But does the joy outweigh the suffering? Maybe for you, but for someone else?)

for everyone.

and if it isn't for you, i encourage you to seek help.

First off, I think you can look up cases where a persons life has been nothing but utter hell for the vast majority of their existence or suffered in ways that made life not worth living. The Fritzl case, for example. I know I would genuinely rather die or have never existed than be subjected to that ever. In such cases, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that that life in particular is not worth living.

But even without extreme cases like this, the idea that the joys of life outweigh the suffering, how would you even qualify that? Your saying you'd have to personally interview the entire world and get them to think deeply and abstractly about whether their life has been worth it, and have to be sure their mentally sound (not depressed or anything) while doing it. Most people don't think about their lives on that broad a scale or objectively enough to make an offhand judgement like this. So I think that saying life is great for everyone one that is made on blind faith and you should not make that kind of judgement for others. They can barely make it for themselves.



But ignoring the extreme cases of a terrible life and being unable to answer impossible questions, I'll just offer the logic my friend offers. He alos believes, like the OP, that having a child is immoral because a being can't consent to life. He doesn't think that you have the right to choose whats best for that being. Even if you think life is a great thing, even if your correct that it is, it's not your right to impose that judgement on others. He himself says that he wishes he had never been born. Not because of any angsty reason or anything like that, his life is pretty good and he's pretty happy. But had he been given the choice, he'd rather have not bothered with the whole thing in the first place and would have preferred to simply exist as a consciousness without form or thought (his belief is that you exist before birth as energy or something similar and he'd have preferred to stay like that).



I'm not arguing either way, that it's immoral or not, but I'm just clarifying this because you don't have to be depressed or have deep seated issues to hold the position that having children is immoral.

 

[Opiate]

I wanted your opinion, because you seem objective and reasonable [almost to a fault ] in most of your posts. So, what do you think? We make choices for living things without agency all the time, is it moral to condemn a being to life (and necessarily death), assuming it will cause some degree of suffering and an uncertain degree of joy? Is it wrong to assume life risks suffering?

I don't think it's an absurd position to hold, but you have to follow through with it and I don't think you're going to like where it takes you.

You shouldn't have pets (involuntary holding of animals), you shouldn't be for abortion, you should at the very least be a vegan. You should be against compulsory education.

Again, not saying it isn't a position to hold. There is nothing inherently "incorrect" about it. It's just a philosophy that will have wide reaching implications, because we make choices for non-sentient beings all the time in a variety of fields.

 

[braves01]

I don't think it's an absurd position to hold, but you have to follow through with it and I don't think you're going to like where it takes you.

You shouldn't have pets (involuntary holding of animals), you shouldn't be for abortion, you should at the very least be a vegan. You should be against compulsory education.

Again, not saying it isn't a position to hold. There is nothing inherently "incorrect" about it. It's just a philosophy that will have wide reaching implications, because we make choices for non-sentient beings all the time in a variety of fields.

Can you expand on the implications of my position? For example, I'm pro-abortion, but if that is logically opposed to my OP then I'm willing to reconsider. I believe in this position (about having children being immoral), and if I'm not consistent it's because I don't fully understand the logical implications, not because I'm willingly hypocritical.

 

[Deified Data]

Having more than 1 child is definitely selfish and misguided, but only your personal morality can determine whether it's immoral because of it.

Can you expand on the implications of my position? For example, I'm pro-abortion, but if that is logically opposed to my OP then I'm willing to reconsider. I believe in this position (about having children being immoral), and if I'm not consistent it's because I don't fully understand the logical implications, not because I'm willingly hypocritical.

If a child needs to give consent to exist in your worldview, would he not also have to give consent to die? Fetuses have no will of their own and no power to give consent, which makes it impossible to gain their consent. Much like owning or eating an animal.

 

[THRILLH0]

Having more than 1 child is definitely selfish and misguided, but only your personal morality can determine whether it's immoral because of it

Why do you say this?

 

[braves01]

If a child needs to give consent to exist in your worldview, would he not also have to give consent to die? Fetuses have no will of their own and no power to give consent, which makes it impossible to gain their consent. Much like owning or eating an animal.

Fetuses aren't in a postion to give consent to die, however, as you point out. Neither are animals. They do feel pain though, so I guess causing them to die inflicts suffering against their consent, which I am against, although it is only at a different time than they would naturally experience it...

I suppose then it would be immoral to cause an already existing being to suffer prior to or beyond that which they would naturally suffer, so abortion would be immoral because there is a risk that living and then dying would net less suffering than simply dying through an abortion.

 

[Deified Data]

Why do you say this?

You're filling the world with one of your offspring at the expense of the planet and your fellow man, regardless of the consequences. As I said, selfish. Not necessarily immoral unless you're opposed to such self-interest. We're animals. Breeding is what we do. But as humans we have the insight to know when we're pursuing self-interest at the expense of the greater good.

 

[THRILLH0]

You're filling the world with one of your offspring at the expense of the planet and your fellow man, regardless of the consequences. As I said, selfish. Not necessarily immoral unless you're opposed to such self-interest. We're animals. Breeding is what we do. But as humans we have the insight to know when we're pursuing self-interest at the expense of the greater good.

If every couple capable of producing children has 2, the earth's population will decrease and eventually perish. I don't quite follow how that's selfish.

 

[Deified Data]

If every couple capable of producing children has 2, the earth's population will decrease and eventually perish. I don't quite follow how that's selfish.

"Family planning" is really only a concept in the first world.

 

[DarkFlow]

OP sounds like he should take this song to heart.
http://youtu.be/z5Otla5157c

 

[Always-honest]

Just think of yourself as an animal with a over-complicated mind.

I agree with what you say, but there is no way.

 

[Eusis]

What if there was a roller coaster that 85% or people enjoyed riding, but that 15% of people hated riding and wished that they had never started riding in the first place once they are on. Now imagine someone gave you the legal right to decide whether or not to put a man in a coma on this roller coaster knowing that he would wake up from the coma right when the roller coaster started but when it was too late to get off of. Would it be immoral to put this comatose man on the roller coaster without his consent, knowing that there was a 15% chance that he will hate it?

Frankly, I think the fact it's guaranteed to break him out justifies anything short of explicitly writing he does not want to be on this roller coaster. Not unless he went back into a coma, then it's pointless. I'm not sure whether that makes it a terrible analogy or a shockingly good one though, it's one moment of potential dread that will give the opportunity to be awake and conscious again, and thus able to continue his life.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I must admit, in my entire moment of living in this earth this is the first time I have ever seen anyone making an argument like this. An... interesting way of thinking, OP, I'll give you that.

 

[BadAss2961]

This is still going on? When I read the OP hours ago, I thought OP was just trollin'.

 

[eucharis]

If every couple capable of producing children has 2, the earth's population will decrease and eventually perish. I don't quite follow how that's selfish.

myth:
"A fertility rate below 2.1 eventually brings about a smaller population, but when people have been breeding at a much higher rate, it takes a long time just to achieve stability. In 1950, global fertility was about 5.0 and we were increasing by around 35 million per year. Today, fertility has dropped to half of that: 2.5. However, we are increasing by 76 million per year: more than twice the growth with half the fertility." -vhemt

 

[NYCmetsfan]

myth:
"A fertility rate below 2.1 eventually brings about a smaller population, but when people have been breeding at a much higher rate, it takes a long time just to achieve stability. In 1950, global fertility was about 5.0 and we were increasing by around 35 million per year. Today, fertility has dropped to half of that: 2.5. However, we are increasing by 76 million per year: more than twice the growth with half the fertility." -vhemt

That's because there are more people. We're growing at a slower rate than we were percentage wise. We doubled our population quickly back then. While were probably never likely to double human population ever again.

 

[braves01]

I must admit, in my entire moment of living in this earth this is the first time I have ever seen anyone making an argument like this. An... interesting way of thinking, OP, I'll give you that.

Do you say that as...a laughing banana? Or as a weeping pickle?

Thinking this way doesn't make me feel good, but thinking compels me to consider the possibility.

This is still going on? When I read the OP hours ago, I thought OP was just trollin'.

I LOVE trolling (especially youtube), but this is no troll. There's a sound basis to this.

 

[eucharis]

That's because there are more people. We're growing at a slower rate than we were percentage wise. We doubled our population quickly back then. While were probably never likely to double human population ever again.

"In 2011, 104 of the world’s 224 nations had birth rates less than “replacement level” of 2.1 and 120 were at or above. However, the number of nations is irrelevant: China has 1.3 billion people and Pitcarin Island has 48. Both nations have fertility rates below replacement level, but one grows by 6.6 million each year and the other is rather stable." -Vhemt

 

[The Adder]

By nature, the choice is vested only in potential parents. Beings that don't exist can't have a choice. When you make them exist, they have already lost that choice. And, my premise assumes that pain and fear of death are certain at this point in time, but any joy is is only speculative.

No human being, none, I don't care how terrible their lives were, went through them without ever experiencing joy.

 

[braves01]

No human being, none, I don't care how terrible their lives were, went through them without ever experiencing joy.

But did that joy outweigh the sorrow? If that person had a chance to weigh the content of his/her life, could he/she say the joy outweighed the sorrow? Was life worth living, or would it have been preferable to have never lived at all? This is the choice that is denied by birth, and the only "out" is through pain of death, self-inflicted or otherwise.

 

[da_wump]

OP is not the first to come up with this idea. It's been around for a while. remember what silenus said....

for a more modern version of the argument, see David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been

 

[Laughing Banana]

Do you say that as...a laughing banana? Or as a weeping pickle?

Are you implying that I was going to point my finger at you and laugh? Nahhh.

I disagree with you though.

But did that joy outweigh the sorrow? If that person had a chance to weigh the content of his/her life, could he/she say the joy outweighed the sorrow? Was life worth living, or would it have been preferable to have never lived at all? This is the choice that is denied by birth, and the only "out" is through pain of death, self-inflicted or otherwise.

Here's the thing though: how could you possibly know the answer to that question if you are not living/existing in the first place? Flip your argument around: one can suggest that your suggestion is also immoral due to the virtue of you rejecting a chance for a person to existing and thus a chance to experience joy of life.

In a hypothetical "scale of immorality", I think it's fair to say that giving a person a 10% or 20% or 30% chance is a lot less immoral than to give him/her zero chance at all.

 

[Ghostmate]

I'm not sure if this was some level of master trolling that I've yet to experience, but I will admit it got a rise out of me and got me to thinking... Anyway, just my two cents: Whether or not it is the biological imperative for humans as animals (yes, I said it) to procreate, the question is whether or not life is overall a net positive or negative. Because I do not subscribe to what the OP states, I suggest that living is more than just the sum of positive events in life and that suffering/painful events shape us just as much. Pain/suffering is not always a negative variable, especially if it teaches us a moral, if it shapes our way of thinking, if it gives us a different perspective, or even if it's just hubris. I don't think you can avoid this and neither should you want to. I think actually it makes one quite...cowardly to suggest such a thing. Sadness, pain, crises are all feelings/events that should remind one that they are alive and, in that regard, just as important to us as the happiness, elation and euphoria. If we only felt (or chose to feel) one side or the other of this equation, we would have no perspective and might as well experience non-existence.

I like to think of it all as the "whether or not to live and loved, than to not loved at all" hypothetical. I find those that answer "not to have loved at all" to be missing out on something the rest of us would not trade the world for. Makes me feel sad for you, friend. Good luck finding your way though .

 

[lawlohwhat]

Regardless of population concerns, when you give birth you force (eventually) sentient beings into existence without giving them the chance to consent to existence. Even if they are born into a perfectly happy family with all the means to raise them, these kids will be forced to suffer the pain of being alive, either through depression or simply the pain and fear of death. The only way to opt-out of living after birth is through death, and even if death is through painless suicide or even unforeseen accident, there is always the fear of dying which is undeniably unpleasant.

Assuming that inflicting suffering on beings capable of feeling pain/fear/what-have-you is immoral, how can having children be moral, even if there is the possibility the net joy they experience is greater than the net pain? Isn't that risk something that should be consented to? Or does the preservation of humanity outweigh that facially immoral act?

Well this is terribly problematic. First, you assume that suffering, and anxiety about death, are necessarily evil. Additionally, you presume that evil is necessarily immoral. These are not universally held opinions. Thus your argument fails because it presumes a universal claim that is demonstrably false.

Also, your analysis of suffering and joy is submitted to a utilitarian premise: That greater good outweighs suffering and that suffering and pain are therefore immoral. This is not simply the case because you think it is the case.

Your bolded question is self-defeating. A being that does not exist has no autonomy and therefore cannot consent. It is a ridiculous question.

I wanted your opinion, because you seem objective and reasonable [almost to a fault ] in most of your posts. So, what do you think? We make choices for living things without agency all the time, is it moral to condemn a being to life (and necessarily death), assuming it will cause some degree of suffering and an uncertain degree of joy? Is it wrong to assume life risks suffering?

The notion that this abstract complete agency exists somewhere in the ether is absurd. No one individual is wholly autonomous. We are thrown into the world from a womb that feeds and houses us. We are socialized before we form long term memories. We are raised and supported by other people. We are nothing without other people.

As to your questions, we could just as easily say that this very suffering that warrants the proposal that birth is immoral applies to the whole of life. Because, how would it not be the case that my birth and your birth are also not immoral? Thus we must conclude that no life is worth living. It is immoral for you to live. It is immoral for me to live. In order to be moral, we must end our lives, and the rest of the human population must also do the same.

Now, aside from your logically perilous posts, it's important to point out that any act of agency is an affirmation of this insufferable life. Every action that you take that is not in the interest of ending your life is inherently non-nihilistic. Even thinking a thought of nihilism destroys nihilism.

 

[braves01]

Here's the thing though: how could you possibly know the answer to that question if you are not living/existing in the first place? Flip your argument around: one can suggest that your suggestion is also immoral due to the virtue of you rejecting a chance for a person to existing and thus a chance to experience joy of life.

In a hypothetical "scale of immorality", I think it's fair to say that giving a person a 10% or 20% or 30% chance is a lot less immoral than to give him/her zero chance at all.

I think it's fair to say that a non-existent being has no stake whatsoever in reality. That being doesn't exist. It isn't "harmed" by not existing.

When you choose to bring a being into existence, that calculus changes. I assume non-existence is better than a life of suffering, and a life whose ultimate measure is suffering is less preferable than neutral non-existence from a utilitarian point of view and from a general point of view if we consider mercy as a valid interest. There's no way at present for a parent to say the life of this child will ultimately be joyous, so disregarding the risk of suffering that follows from existence seems immoral.

 

[Trent Strong]

Frankly, I think the fact it's guaranteed to break him out justifies anything short of explicitly writing he does not want to be on this roller coaster. Not unless he went back into a coma, then it's pointless. I'm not sure whether that makes it a terrible analogy or a shockingly good one though, it's one moment of potential dread that will give the opportunity to be awake and conscious again, and thus able to continue his life.

Oops, I didn't mean that putting him on the roller coaster would guarantee to break him out of the coma. The only point of him being in the coma was that he wouldn't have any idea what riding the coaster would entail and that he couldn't give his consent to riding it.

 

[MattKeil]

I think it's fair to say that a non-existent being has no stake whatsoever in reality. That being doesn't exist. It isn't "harmed" by not existing.

When you choose to bring a being into existence, that calculus changes. I assume non-existence is better than a life of suffering, and a life whose ultimate measure is suffering is less preferable than neutral non-existence from a utilitarian point of view and from a general point of view if we consider mercy as a valid interest. There's no way at present for a parent to say the life of this child will ultimately be joyous, so disregarding the risk of suffering that follows from existence seems immoral.

I prefer to exist rather than not exist, therefore your premise is inherently flawed. Since there is no way to determine ahead of time whether or not an unconceived person will have a similar preference, the dilemma presented is meaningless.

 

[braves01]

Well this is terribly problematic. First, you assume that suffering, and anxiety about death, are necessarily evil. Additionally, you presume that evil is necessarily immoral. These are not universally held opinions. Thus your argument fails because it presumes a universal claim that is demonstrably false.

Also, your analysis of suffering and joy is submitted to a utilitarian premise: That greater good outweighs suffering and that suffering and pain are therefore immoral. This is not simply the case because you think it is the case.

Your bolded question is self-defeating. A being that does not exist has no autonomy and therefore cannot consent. It is a ridiculous question.



The notion that this abstract complete agency exists somewhere in the ether is absurd. No one individual is wholly autonomous. We are thrown into the world from a womb that feeds and houses us. We are socialized before we form long term memories. We are raised and supported by other people. We are nothing without other people.

As to your questions, we could just as easily say that this very suffering that warrants the proposal that birth is immoral applies to the whole of life. Because, how would it not be the case that my birth and your birth are also not immoral? Thus we must conclude that no life is worth living. It is immoral for you to live. It is immoral for me to live. In order to be moral, we must end our lives, and the rest of the human population must also do the same.

Now, aside from your logically perilous posts, it's important to point out that any act of agency is an affirmation of this insufferable life. Every action that you take that is not in the interest of ending your life is inherently non-nihilistic. Even thinking a thought of nihilism destroys nihilism.

Whether "evil" is immoral is up in the air. Questioning whether "evil" as humanity generally envisions it means questioning whether the Holocaust or other genocides are immoral. I think it's pretty clear how most of humanity views those historical events.

I don't think the immorality lies in the fact of merely existing, so you and I wouldn't be forced to kill ourselves in order to be moral. The real immorality lies with our forebears who chose to give birth to us without our consent to existence. The first bolded piece of the quote highlights the fact that the unborn can't give consent to exist. I don't think this is absurd, although the truth often is. The question is whether we can find some moral basis to override this fact, which I don't think we can, or at least I haven't been convinced so far.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Whether "evil" is immoral is up in the air. Questioning whether "evil" as humanity generally envisions it means questioning whether the Holocaust or other genocides are immoral. I think it's pretty clear how most of humanity views those historical events.

I don't think the immorality lies in the fact of merely existing, so you and I wouldn't be forced to kill ourselves in order to be moral. The real immorality lies with our forebears who chose to give birth to us without our consent to existence. The first bolded piece of the quote highlights the fact that the unborn can't give consent to exist. I don't think this is absurd, although the truth often is. The question is whether we can find some moral basis to override this fact, which I don't think we can, or at least I haven't been convinced so far.

Clarify: you declaring having children as immoral means that you disagree to the act of having children? Perhaps even advocating that it is something that people shouldn't do?

Let's just say that there is this magical button that you can press that can immediately render all people in this world unable to conceive a child: would you press it?

 

[braves01]

Clarify: you declaring having children as immoral means that you disagree to the act of having children? Perhaps even advocating that it is something that people shouldn't do?

Let's just say that there is this magical button that you can press that can immediately render all people in this world unable to conceive a child: would you press it?

Yes. I would would press the button and smile thinking about all the suffering avoided. I'm going to bed for real this time. See you in the morning.

 

[Monocle]

Yes. I would would press the button and smile thinking about all the suffering avoided. I'm going to bed for real this time. See you in the morning.

Would you also smile about all the beauty, joy, and creativity that you denied the world? All the chances for progress? All the opportunities for discovery?

 

[Laughing Banana]

Yes. I would would press the button and smile thinking about all the suffering avoided;

Huh.

You don't think that pressing that button is also a highly immoral act to do? You are basically taking people's choices away from them even though they may disagree with you, and you are basically concluding with a 100% certainty--although with no way of knowing--that the potential children that you just erased from existence couldn't possibly live a happy, fulfilling life?

Hell, one of them might turn out like just MattKeil above, denouncing you of your reasoning.

Interesting.

 

[bidguy]

Alright people stop making children. They dont want to live on this planet because braves says life sucks.

 

[braves01]

Existence guarantees suffering but only promises joy/creativity. By pressing the button I would be eliminating suffering at the price of speculative joy. Seems like a good deal to me,

 

[Animation-Imp]

The choice for them has already been made; They exist. When you give birth to the unborn, you submit them to varying degrees to of suffering. Adopted children have already been born.

At the same time you give them an opportunity to experience happiness, love, pleasure, fullfilment etc...

Those are as important as the negatives.
We are biological beings, reproduction is an integral part of being alive.

And concerning the immorality of having this huge population...
I'm more than convinced earth wil be around longer than we will.
When our critical population has been reached it will collapse as all populations do when they outgrow their resources.

 

[Monocle]

Existence guarantees suffering but only promises joy/creativity. By pressing the button I would be eliminating suffering at the price of speculative joy. Seems like a good deal to me,

That's like saying buying perishable food guarantees that it will eventually spoil, but not that it will taste good, and that therefore you should never buy any fruits, vegetables, or meats. Does this reasoning seem sensible? I'll answer for you: it's completely ludicrous.

Life is risk, and that risk is worth it. If you doubt this, read a book or listen to some music. If those activities don't do anything for you, you're probably not fit to be an arbiter for any issue that involves empathy.

 

[Rentahamster]

Existence guarantees suffering but only promises joy/creativity. By pressing the button I would be eliminating suffering at the price of speculative joy. Seems like a good deal to me,

And yet you would gladly, and directly, cause immense suffering in billions of people by condemning them to a life of sterility and the realization that the human race is doomed. You must think that the prevention of any future suffering is a worthy justification. But it isn't.

Have you seen Children of Men?

 

[neojubei]

Regardless of population concerns, when you give birth you force (eventually) sentient beings into existence without giving them the chance to consent to existence. Even if they are born into a perfectly happy family with all the means to raise them, these kids will be forced to suffer the pain of being alive, either through depression or simply the pain and fear of death. The only way to opt-out of living after birth is through death, and even if death is through painless suicide or even unforeseen accident, there is always the fear of dying which is undeniably unpleasant.

Assuming that inflicting suffering on beings capable of feeling pain/fear/what-have-you is immoral, how can having children be moral, even if there is the possibility the net joy they experience is greater than the net pain? Isn't that risk something that should be consented to? Or does the preservation of humanity outweigh that facially immoral act?

I feel the same way. I'd rather not be born than live this life.

That's like saying buying perishable food guarantees that it will eventually spoil, but not that it will taste good, and that therefore you should never buy any fruits, vegetables, or meats. Does this reasoning seem sensible? I'll answer for you: it's completely ludicrous.

Life is risk, and that risk is worth it. If you doubt this, read a book or listen to some music. If those activities don't do anything for you, you're probably not fit to be an arbiter for any issue that involves empathy.

Life is not worth the risk. Least for me

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

So you want a world without suffering eh?

OP, how hold are you btw?
Also, how many instances have you run into somebody telling you they wish they weren't born from the moments of suffering in their lives? Friendship, family, laughter, memories, nostalgia, discovery, excitement, wonder, exploration, maturity, music, movies, creativity, smells, tastes... there are so many beautiful things to experience in this world, and suffering is not only just a fraction of it, but a necessity that must exist in order to know what happiness is.

What is the endgame to this thought anyway, the eradication of the human race? A trace of suffering in humanity means humanity is immoral and must be erased?

 

[Monocle]

I feel the same way. I'd rather not be born than live this life.


Life is not worth the risk. Least for me

And this is the key. You have to speak for yourself here because it would be the height of arrogance to assume other individuals wouldn't want to accept the risks that come with existence. If you want to look at it from a utilitarian perspective, you could easily argue that potential future innovations that would guarantee maximal quality of life for everyone would be more than worth the price that our species would have paid in its painful crawl toward that goal.

So you want a world of no suffering then?

OP, how hold are you btw?
Also, how many instances have you run into somebody telling you they wish they weren't born from the moments of suffering in their lives? Friendship, family, laughter, memories, nostalgia, discovery, excitement, wonder, exploration, maturity, music, movies, creativity, smells, tastes... there are so many beautiful things to experience in this world, and suffering is not only just a fraction of it, but a necessity that must exist in order to know what happiness is.

What is the endgame to this thought anyway, the eradication of the human race? A trace of suffering in humanity means humanity is immoral and must be erased?

you know hitler caused an awful lot of suffering but he ended and prevented even more, just saying

 

[lastplayed]

As G'Kar once said, we are part of the universe that's trying to figure out why it exists.

...or something.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

Sounds like someone wishes God hadn't made that promise that he wouldn't send another flood, not that I believe in that thing.

Humans trump pre-fetus and fetus. Is it evil? Meh. Depends on the context.

 

[teruterubozu]

You were asked, but you've forgotten.

 

[Prime crotch]

Dude I think you're heading for a serious mental breakdown. Yes, life is in part suffering, but that's just a part of what it is.

 

[neojubei]

Dude I think you're heading for a serious mental breakdown. Yes, life is in part suffering, but that's just a part of what it is.

It's not really worth it. I don't think I want to bring any child into this world.

 

[Narolf]

My cousin, who is 33, has sealed his couple with a child rather than a marriage. Philosophical considerations aside, you can find some "moral" in that.

 

[SonnyBoy]

Wow.... #HITSbackbutton

 

[test_account]

No, it is not immoral at all of course. Every living thing have an instinct to keep surviving, that is why reproduction is possible and being done. Goes for everything to the smallest bacteria to the biggest three on the planet.

I dont think that many people think about "what if my kid gets a horrible life" when they want to have a kid. You cant guarantee anything, its possible to be born with a desease that causes pain and all that, or get sick later on in life. But that is the same as saying "i wont go outside the door because maybe something bad will happen to me". You can also flip the question around and ask if it is immoral to not have kids, because then you wont allow them the possibility to have joy. Of course this isnt immoral either, i mean if someone chose not to have kids. There might be several of other reasons why people dont chose to have kids.

One way to put it is that living is the most dangerous thing in the world, no one has survived it hehe Another thing is that pretty much everyone fear death. That means that they prefer to live and are happy that they do.