Support NeoGAF

[Chibits12]

That sounds very depressing.

 

[Air]

I certainly think, philosophically, you may have a point, and this is something I brought up in the regular atheism topic before it spiraling into something else (I'm a theist btdubs). I think if you dig deep enough, very few beliefs actually hold well. I don't know if there is anything to ease your moral burden, but I'm glad you are thinking about things like this. I think it's kind of a form of cheating to bypass some of the really hard questions like this because they may be unpleasant, or just to stop 'going down the rabbit hole'.

 

[TheOohChild]

i think you have an immature view of death

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Sorry, 'suffering'. The very concept of ascribing suffering to desire and wanting and all that jazz is just... ugh. I can't handle it. It's just so rote and boring.

Desire is not the accurate translation, the accurate translation would be 'craving'. Desire can be positive (for example, the desire to be a good person), but craving is compulsive and obsessional. To use the same example, having an obsession or craving to be a good person would also cause suffering, even though the thing being craved is arguably 'good'. It is more about our participation and attachments than the objects themselves. You can desire something that is 'a good', and remain non-attached at the same time. It's when we don't have that option that it presents a problem.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Judge...Death?

 

[Secret Fawful]

i think you have an immature view of death

Do elaborate.

 

[Aquamarine]

Not a damn thing on this planet exists specifically to 'contribute' to anything in any objective way. We struggle and try to have good lives. That's the story of life as we know it. All the extra stuff is just filler.


This seems like a wonderful point to bounce of OP's arguments. "Not a damn thing on this planet exists specifically to 'contribute' to anything in any objective way." Certainly the addition of more children through procreation wouldn't objectively benefit anyone according to this line of logic?


There is no objective evil. Objective morality, even if it existed, isn't something anyone could possibly know about, we don't have the capacity. All we can do is say "I -think- X is evil".

Homicide, murder, rape, genocide, serial killing....is not objectively evil? Neither is Hitler? His actions aren't objectively evil? That's a very hard pill to swallow as you see beings suffer as a product of "what we think as evil" and consider if it was worth bringing that child into the world in the first place. Every human I have ever known has suffered in his or her lifetime. I know I've suffered greatly. Is it better to me to have never suffered? Never known about any possible negatives? Remained eternally ignorant? Perhaps.

It doesn't.

But your assertion also makes the fairly broad assumption that everything living thing outside of humans do contribute to the existence or ecosystem of something--which is just patently absurd and suggests you really don't know anything about biology or the evolutionary history of life on this planet.

Except you forgot the part where I'm only referencing humans here. Do I think all beings are objectively good for the Earth? Hell no. But then I look at beings that don't possess the faculty to suffer, like trees. Is it better to have only beings that cannot suffer on the Earth...than to litter the Earth with beings that have the capacity to suffer?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Social isolation is much more pronounced now, however. So people tend not have coping and support systems readily available.

You only feel this way because the ability to read and relate these tales of social isolation has never been greater in the history of our planet.

Isolation still existed, read just about any biography about a great writer, painter or musician from the past. They just had an outlet to express it. Did Edgar Allen Poe strike you as someone who had great coping skills and support systems available?

You didn't know how the fur trapper in Winnepeg felt or the corn grower in Iowa struggled. They didn't have the ability to express it nor was it socially acceptable to do so ... now just about everyone does.

 

[Dice]

Listen bro. As far as we know, we are the only sentience in the universe. We can assume there are others, but we are the only example we know. The only product the universe has produced that is capable of observing and knowing itself. You need to really think like that. We are not separate from the universe, we are part of it, made of the same materials, forming and degrading just like everything else. We are the eyes and mind of the universe. And we are not only sentient, but we have the capacity to imagine something better and more beautiful and create it. We have just barely gotten a little bit out of our primitive phase. Who knows what we are capable of? Who knows if there might be some reason for the universe to have made us? And you are thinking maybe it is best to stop the whole thing because we experience a little pain and fear? Why stop at humans, when animals also experience pain and fear and death? Should we destroy all life? You're sounding like you're on the path to becoming a movie villain.

 

[SpartanForce]

Well in my case, just think. I have lots of mental disorders and what's the point of having a child? He will only suffer, even if he takes meds. Is all genetic. For a analogy with the OP, does this unborn one deserve to suffer? No. So the logical thing is just to don't have it.

 

[Kinitari]

Desire is not the accurate translation, the accurate translation would be 'craving'. Desire can be positive (for example, the desire to be a good person), but craving is compulsive and obsessional. To use the same example, having an obsession or craving to be a good person would also cause suffering, even though the thing being craved is arguably 'good'. It is more about our participation and attachments than the objects themselves. You can desire something that is 'a good', and remain non-attached at the same time. It's when we don't have that option that it presents a problem.

I guess that's a less dramatic version of buddhism than I am used to hearing. It's usually all about how desire is the source of all suffering, so by eventually not wanting anything you'll be happy. Or rather 'content'. And then you die.

Which is boring.

I don't mind the general "try not to crave things too hard" idea. I like to keep that in my mind when I go about my day.

 

[Moppet13]

But if they don't want that chance, you're forcing them die, which even if it isn't painful in itself, makes most people fearful to think about. The unborn, those who don't exist, are unaffected by a lack of choice because they don't exist.

I guess that becomes more of a question of faith, if you simply believe you rot in the ground, then you'll simply go back to being how you were before you were alive. Nothing. If life were so awful that you rather not exist, and you believe you'll just be a lifeless corpse, then you can return to what you were before life. If you believe in hell, then the option doesn't really exist since it would just be greater suffering to kill yourself.

Whether or not they want the option to live? I don't think anyone could ever decide that for someone else.

It's also not your obligation to create more life, it's just your choice.

It's not like you have never had a fun moment in your life, it isn't all suffering and hard work.

 

[Hilbert]

I had a good day today. I listed to Ode to joy and felt it was so beautiful I may have teared up a bit. I played with my baby, and he laughed as I made funny faces at him. I walked outside and breathed fresh air.

Life is good. I wouldn't trade it for anything, and I hope to pass on my joy to as many people as I can.

 

[Air]

I guess that's a less dramatic version of buddhism than I am used to hearing. It's usually all about how desire is the source of all suffering, so by eventually not wanting anything you'll be happy. Or rather 'content'. And then you die.

Which is boring.

I don't mind the general "try not to crave things too hard" idea. I like to keep that in my mind when I go about my day.

It's a bit deeper than that. You should check out the Tibetan book of the dead. I think some of the content may be interesting to you, or atleast how they verbalize their ideas.

Edit:it's just one type of Buddhism, but it really resonated with me.

 

[Iph]

Well in my case, just think. I have lots of mental disorders and what's the point of having a child? He will only suffer, even if he takes meds. Is all genetic. For a analogy with the OP, does this unborn one deserve to suffer? No. So the logical thing is just to don't have it.

I have seen someone with a parent who has very seveer mental health problems raised by the healthy other parent and turn out just fine. I don't think there is a direct genetic corellation. Does it make it more likely? I'm sure, but it's not the rule. If you only focus on the negative that tends to be what you'll get. Like feeding it to yourself.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

The era has just begun. Don't criticize. Take a new approach.

I say this because you are absolutely correct. We are in a new renaissance. Like any new beginning, it is a transition. Be sensitive.

As long as we don't have total financial turmoil (an unfortunate possibility) humankind can evolve into unforeseeable greatness.

I encourage optimism even with though chaos looms overhead.

Just begun? Dude, it has been going on since the Industrial Revolution.

Listen to Hans Rosling use graphs beat the shit out of cynics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

 

[Green Mamba]

Except you forgot the part where I'm only referencing humans here. Do I think all beings are objectively good for the Earth? Hell no. But then I look at beings that don't possess the faculty to suffer, like trees. Is it better to have only beings that cannot suffer on the Earth...than to litter the Earth with beings that have the capacity to suffer?

So you'd prefer the world have plants and only plants? That's kind of a strange belief system, but okay.

How would you define "suffering?"

 

[Kinitari]

This seems like a wonderful point to bounce of OP's arguments. "Not a damn thing on this planet exists specifically to 'contribute' to anything in any objective way." Certainly the addition of more children through procreation wouldn't objectively benefit anyone according to this line of logic?

Sure, but how do you know you are objectively benefiting anyone if you don't know what's objective? And why should you only act in the aims of objectively benefiting anyone? Embrace your subjectivity and do your best with it.

Homicide, murder, rape, genocide, serial killing....is not objectively evil? Neither is Hitler? His actions aren't objectively evil? That's a very hard pill to swallow as you see beings suffer as a product of "what we think as evil" and consider if it was worth bringing that child into the world in the first place. Every human I have ever known has suffered in his or her lifetime. I know I've suffered greatly. Is it better to me to have never suffered? Never known about any possible negatives? Remained eternally ignorant? Perhaps.

Not objective evil, none of it is objective. Morality in and of itself is a subjective creation, it's a tool we use to try and categorize things we like and things we don't like. That most people might agree on where certain items fall on the list does not make them objective, and trying to argue that they are is a waste of time.

Embrace that you are subjective and empower yourself, what you personally want is worth no less than what anyone else wants. Everyone, even if they claim what they do is in the objective right or wrong, is simply acting subjectively.

 

[SpartanForce]

I have seen someone with a parent who has very seveer mental health problems raised by the healthy other parent and turn out just fine. I don't think there is a direct genetic corellation. Does it make it more likely? I'm sure, but it's not the rule.

Two pdocs told me there is. 50% of chance, so if I'm the father, the kid will have a great chance to be born with a mental disorder. Is sad but... is better this way.

 

[FreeMufasa]

My life is so happy n fun since baby.I have problems but Manz gets through them you get me.

Seeing all these negative and depressed ppl here, I truly feel sorry for them.

 

[Eusis]

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?

The chance to experience suffering is the chance to experience joy. Assuming they even exist at all before birth as a living being I'd imagine it was like being in a void, feeling nothing. It's worth taking the chance to experience joy and love even if we must suffer in order to do so (or worse, suffer to no reward.)

This is just going off the more philosophical angle though, the more pragmatic angle is that this is kinda pointless to even think about, though you probably should try to keep in mind if you can reasonably sustain raising another living being.

 

[jon bones]

have you considered seeing a therapist?

 

[ConfusingJazz]

have you considered seeing a therapist?

Seems like the right response.

 

[speculawyer]

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?

The person only gets the ability for full consent 18 years after they are born, so there is not much you can do about it.

Babies are a by-product of our innate desire for sex that evolution put into us. That's just the way it is.

 

[Wazzim]

Morality is irrelevant for me when it comes to having children. I am human and I need to pass on my genes.

 

[Iph]

Two pdocs told me there is. 50% of chance, so if I'm the father, the kid will have a great chance to be born with a mental disorder. Is sad but... is better this way.

LOL

So that's their way of saying "it could happen"? I understand if you would not want children and completely respect that. I'm just saying different states of feeling--depression, happiness, melancholy, inspiration, gratitude--experiencing any one of these gives us a comparison. When you feel uninspired it gives you a reference point to appreciate when you do feel inspired, and so on. I honestly don't believe there is a person on this earth, no matter how "clean" their mental health genetics are, who would not experience depression or other signs of mental illness when put under the "right" conditions.

 

[braves01]

Listen bro. As far as we know, we are the only sentience in the universe. We can assume there are others, but we are the only example we know. The only product the universe has produced that is capable of observing and knowing itself. You need to really think like that. We are not separate from the universe, we are part of it, made of the same materials, forming and degrading just like everything else. We are the eyes and mind of the universe. And we are not only sentient, but we have the capacity to imagine something better and more beautiful and create it. We have just barely gotten a little bit out of our primitive phase. Who knows what we are capable of? Who knows if there might be some reason for the universe to have made us? And you are thinking maybe it is best to stop the whole thing because we experience a little pain and fear? Why stop at humans, when animals also experience pain and fear and death? Should we destroy all life? You're sounding like you're on the path to becoming a movie villain.

This seems like a simple means/end argument. The end is a highly sentient race that overcomes suffering, but at the expense of how many? The universe is an amoral collection of matter, but humans are moral beings. Our sentience even at its current state has allowed us to decide what we think is moral and immoral, or simply what is right and what is wrong. I think I addressed this in the OP when I asked whether preserving humanity was an overriding concern that trumped what I view as the immoral practice of bringing into being creatures capable of feeling of pain that won't necessarily experience joy or an analogue of joy that surpasses the pain suffered through existence. The only ways I see this argument (having children is immoral) being disproved is by arguing that existence (and death) are not suffering, or by arguing that forcing beings to suffer but not necessarily experience joy is not immoral. That's why I really want to hear a solid philosophical argument against this position.

Edit: I don't need or want a therapist unless they can answer this question on sound footing, philosophically. If Opiate is online, I'd actually really value his opinion.

 

[hym]

The person only gets the ability for full consent 18 years after they are born, so there is not much you can do about it.

Babies are a by-product of our innate desire for sex that evolution put into us. That's just the way it is.

by-product? c'mon now it's the entire goal.

 

[Partial Gamification]

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?

It is our responsibility as a Society to make this World livable. Life is a gift in one way and perhaps a punishment in another. Those that will come tomorrow - people have the right to breed - do not need to face every trauma that we have lived. This is not to say that the world we construct needs to be some candy-coated rubber-room, but that there is an unnecessary amount of pained cause by things that we do. Nothing is perfect but through incremental changes, there can be improvement.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I guess that's a less dramatic version of buddhism than I am used to hearing. It's usually all about how desire is the source of all suffering, so by eventually not wanting anything you'll be happy. Or rather 'content'. And then you die.

Which is boring.

I don't mind the general "try not to crave things too hard" idea. I like to keep that in my mind when I go about my day.

Buddhism isn't always very easy to understand, I think a lot of people contribute to the misunderstanding. The word they use to prescribe the cause of suffering is tanha, which literally translated would be 'thirst'. The image it evokes for me is of a man wandering the desert in search of water. It is wise to seek water to drink or else he will die, but in the mean time he can be mentally afflicted by this need, or he can just observe it for what it is without adding his own desperation to it and making himself more miserable, knowing that that may be the only decision that he gets to make.

But it's also worth stating that you can't apply judgements like "boring" to one who is very practiced in Buddhist discipline. It seems boring to us because of the way we go about our lives, but for one who has cultivated a high level of concentration they cease to be 'bored', even if they're doing things that externally appear very dull, only because their level of engagement with their experience is such that it leaves no room for anything that could be called boredom.

The problem with unnecessary want, say that outside of shelter, financial security, nutrition, etc, is that we don't find lasting happiness there. Impermanence is harsh, because it throws the scale of satisfaction/dissatisfaction way more towards dissatisfaction, because even when we're satisfied with something there is a subtler level where we're also dissatisfied, because we know that it will end. So then there's a problem, every moment of satisfaction comes with it a moment of dissatisfaction, but it is not true that every moment of dissatisfaction carries with it a moment of dissatisfaction. The problem with want is just our tendency to mischaracterize it as our savior.

 

[Eusis]

Also: frankly, the universe is kind of an asshole relative to our current state as humans in the first world. Want to be a boy or a girl? Born in this country or that country? To a wealthy family or a poor family? With good genes or bad genes? A human or a worm? Well fuck you, you take whatever the fuck we dish out to you! Nevermind the fact you wouldn't exist without those certain factors depending on your belief in souls or whatever.

 

[Bro Space]

have you considered seeing a therapist?

why should he though, even if his ideas does not fall into line with the mass public of yoloing and then popping out a couple of kids...

you have to at least venture out of the box and ponder at least the ramifications of bring a life... any life into existence.

 

[SpartanForce]

LOL

So that's there way of saying "it could happen"? I understand if you would not want children and completely respect that. I'm just saying different states of feeling--depression, happiness, melancholy, inspiration, gratitude--experiencing any one of these gives us a comparison. When you feel uninspired it gives you a reference point to appreciate when you do feel inspired, and so on.

And? Those emotions are normal, but depression, bipolar mania, personality disorders are not. I don't want another human being to suffer in despair every fucking day because of me. Period.

 

[Kinitari]

Buddhism isn't always very easy to understand, I think a lot of people contribute to the misunderstanding. The word they use to prescribe the cause of suffering is tanha, which literally translated would be 'thirst'. The image it evokes for me is of a man wandering the desert in search of water. It is wise to seek water to drink or else he will die, but in the mean time he can be mentally afflicted by this need, or he can just observe it for what it is without adding his own desperation to it and making himself more miserable, knowing that that may be the only decision that he gets to make.

But it's also worth stating that you can't apply judgements like "boring" to one who is very practiced in Buddhist discipline. It seems boring to us because of the way we go about our lives, but for one who has cultivated a high level of concentration they cease to be 'bored', even if they're doing things that externally appear very dull, only because their level of engagement with their experience is such that it leaves no room for anything that could be called boredom.

I guess I'll make an effort to read more into it. I am not super interested or anything, but it seems to me that it's sometimes filled with mysticism, and sometimes just really 'dull' (subjectively).

 

[Dice]

This seems like a simple means/end argument. The end is a highly sentient race that overcomes suffering, but at the expense of how many? The universe is an amoral collection of matter, but humans are moral beings. Our sentience even at its current state has allowed us to decide what we think is moral and immoral, or simply what is right and what is wrong. I think I addressed this in the OP when I asked whether preserving humanity was an overriding concern that trumped what I view as the immoral practice of bringing into being creatures capable of feeling of pain that won't necessarily experience joy or an analogue of joy that surpasses the pain suffered through existence. The only ways I see this argument (having children is immoral) being disproved is by arguing that existence (and death) are not suffering, or by arguing that forcing beings to suffer but not necessarily experience joy is not immoral. That's why I really want to hear a solid philosophical argument against this position.

You're oversimplifying my argument every bit as much as you are oversimplifying your own position. Don't say that you want a real, deep, philosophical-moral discussion when your own statements are loaded with tons of presuppositions you leave undefined and unsupported.

 

[Prologue]

The sweet is never as sweet without the sour.

 

[lowrider007]

Unless you suffered from some form of depression it's hard to relate to what the OP is saying, I understand perfectly, I hate that I was born into this world without no choice and am forced to endure the pain that comes with that, so many expectations and responsibilities are placed on me/us just for 'existing', not so long ago I never existed, and then I was popped out onto a round ball in the Orion's spur orbiting a massive ball of hydrogen and helium, I don't think I'll ever come to terms with that, and the fact that many other people seem to just be wrapped up in so much social bullshit and politics just makes things even worse.

I honestly think that some people just find the very idea of being alive 'strange', I've met many homeless people over the years and I nearly always feel a strong connection with many of them, lost souls that are shunned because they don't fit in or choose to play their part in the great economic machine, I'm here at the moment by the skin of my teeth but the streets are always calling my name, the mental fatigue I feel to sustain my simple but modern lifestyle grows heavy on my shoulders, sometimes when I look at the stars at night I just want to go home, oh well.

 

[tirminyl]

This reminds me of Shameless UK (potential s8 or s9 episode spoiler)

Spoiler

The new born baby Gallagher saw how effed up the entire family, and everyone around her was, decided to stop feeding and just whither away. The parents wanted her to live but the baby couldn't understand why they would want her to live in this messed up world and then told the parents that she didn't ask to be born. The baby then asked to find one decent human being and she would reconsider. Well, the parents tried but ultimately didn't so the baby gave up, stopped "talking" and began to whither away. It wasn't until the dad showed an remarkable act of kindness to someone that the baby was given hope that not everything is crap and decided to live.

It's nice to question my existence before bed.

 

[Kinitari]

This seems like a simple means/end argument. The end is a highly sentient race that overcomes suffering, but at the expense of how many? The universe is an amoral collection of matter, but humans are moral beings. Our sentience even at its current state has allowed us to decide what we think is moral and immoral, or simply what is right and what is wrong. I think I addressed this in the OP when I asked whether preserving humanity was an overriding concern that trumped what I view as the immoral practice of bringing into being creatures capable of feeling of pain that won't necessarily experience joy or an analogue of joy that surpasses the pain suffered through existence. The only ways I see this argument (having children is immoral) being disproved is by arguing that existence (and death) are not suffering, or by arguing that forcing beings to suffer but not necessarily experience joy is not immoral. That's why I really want to hear a solid philosophical argument against this position.

Edit: I don't need or want a therapist unless they can answer this question on sound footing, philosophically. If Opiate is online, I'd actually really value his opinion.

You are working off a foundation in your subjective ideas of morality. It doesn't translate into other peoples ideas of morality. I do not think existence is suffering, because my existence is not suffering. I do not think of procreating in the same framework as you do - it's not about 'bringing non-existent beings into existence'. There are no non-existent beings. Procreation simply is, and as I am not psychic, I do not base my life around this non-knowable future.

 

[Iph]

And? Those emotions are normal, but depression, bipolar mania, personality disorders are not. I don't want another human being to suffer in despair every fucking day because of me. Period.

I think depression is normal. It's even been considered a state humans enter to conserve energy and think on their current situations. Heck, maybe bipolar, personality and other disorders are human's off-kilter result of attempting to adjust to the changes that have exploded in human society over the last 2000 years?

The mental health field is not the most concrete form of medicine. It's not as simple as "hearts pump blood". There's aren't straight-forward tests for human designated illnesses. There are no virus' to detect. It was just decided that "x set of symptoms equals y diagnosis" basically.

Some people find themselves getting better by doing simple things like exercising, eating healthy, getting a little bit of sun, socializing and getting enough sleep. Where is that accounted for? When humans became what they are today, biologically, I'm pretty sure they didn't sit in a chair all day, staring at a computer screen, eating processed food that made them feel bad, and never getting out much. I don't think people making healthy lifestyle changes will fix everyones problems, but I think the culmative regression of the human lifestyle is a good place to start placing some blame over genetics.

 

[Aquamarine]

Sure, but how do you know you are objectively benefiting anyone if you don't know what's objective? And why should you only act in the aims of objectively benefiting anyone? Embrace your subjectivity and do your best with it.

Subjectivity creates a theater of the absurd. "It's only your opinion. Why should anyone care?" Well, why should YOU care? How can I embrace something that's absurd by definition? The pursuit of objectiveness in anything allows us humans to continue remaining sane, even if it IS futile. If true objectiveness cannot be achieved (I'm seeing parallels to Plato's "Theory of Forms" here), what's the point in any opinion in the first place? I certainly don't want to have any opinions if they're just going to be subjective...

Not objective evil, none of it is objective. Morality in and of itself is a subjective creation, it's a tool we use to try and categorize things we like and things we don't like. That most people might agree on where certain items fall on the list does not make them objective, and trying to argue that they are is a waste of time.

Embrace that you are subjective and empower yourself, what you personally want is worth no less than what anyone else wants. Everyone, even if they claim what they do is in the objective right or wrong, is simply acting subjectively.

Well at the very least, there's chaos. We humans have eternally attributed chaos to "evil." But how are you supposed to consider any other situation? How can pure chaos be anything BUT evil? That's a concept our puny brains can't seem to wrap our head around...

 

[Kurdel]

The only ways I see this argument (having children is immoral) being disproved is by arguing that existence (and death) are not suffering, or by arguing that forcing beings to suffer but not necessarily experience joy is not immoral. That's why I really want to hear a solid philosophical argument against this position..

I think your argument falls apart when you presuppose the risk of pain is greater than the risk of joy. Or, that the possibility of pain is enough to invalidate procreation. I won't aboard this question, but I will offer you the argument from a biological point of view:

Considering the only reason there is still life on this planet after millions of years of evolution, it is only logical to assume the only real purpose in life is procreation. Passing your genes your infants is the only biological reason you exists right now. Avoiding procreation would be stopping a chain of DNA transmission that goes back to the a unicellular bacteria that gave birth to billions of individuals.

Sure, in some situations where people are poor as shit it could be immoral to make children endure that pain. But if you think you can take care and educate a full human being for the rest of your life, even if there is the risk of the child dying in a freak accident, seems more than worth it for me.

 

[Buddha Beam]

That is one hell of a depressing worldview, OP.

 

[Rentahamster]

Hey OP, you should read this story:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/

Tell me which philosophy you agree with the most

 

[braves01]

You're oversimplifying my argument every bit as much as you are oversimplifying your own position. Don't say that you want a real, deep, philosophical-moral discussion when your own statements are loaded with tons of presuppositions you leave undefined and unsupported.

I don't want to misconstrue or reduce what you are saying, I only want to understand. My presuppositions as I see them are: 1.) existence necessarily entails some degree of suffering, and 2.) suffering is bad, m'kay. Your argument appears to be that humans that humans are the only (maybe) sentient beings we know of at this point, so we shouldn't stop now when we can create a utopia without suffering. My point is just that even at our current state we know that "suffering" is bad, and inflicting it on other beings capable of experiencing it is bad. So, we shouldn't do it. Animals as far as we know have no moral sense, but I agree that inflicting pain on them that they can experience is bad. Animal-to-animal immorality doesn't exist because they aren't beings capable of understanding morality.

That is one hell of a depressing worldview, OP.

I'm not trying to be depressing for the sake of it. I'm trying to apply what we believe is moral to its logical conclusion. Truthfully, I'm looking for a way to convince myself it's not the logical result.

 

[Trent Strong]

I agree with you OP. It seems immoral to me too.

 

[Cyan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44CkhD_HoVQ

Stop hating man.

Once you pop, the fun don't stop!

 

[Lamel]

I think that is seriously one of the stupidest opinions I've ever seen. But you're entitled to it.

 

[Kinitari]

Subjectivity creates a theater of the absurd. "It's only your opinion. Why should anyone care?" Well, why should YOU care? How can I embrace something that's absurd by definition? The pursuit of objectiveness in anything allows us humans to continue remaining sane, even if it IS futile. If true objectiveness cannot be achieved (I'm seeing parallels to Plato's "Theory of Forms" here), what's the point in any opinion in the first place?

Opinions aren't about achieving objectivity, it's about sharing your subjectivity. If they (your opinions once shared) resonate with people, if you can convince them of their quality - then some of your subjective ideas will 'rub off' on someone else. Morality is not something that I think can ever be objective, because by it's very nature it must be subjective.

We can come closer to objectivity on a lot of different subjects, morality is just far down on the list.

Well at the very least, there's chaos. We humans have eternally attributed chaos to "evil." But how are you supposed to consider any other situation? How can pure chaos be anything BUT evil? That's a concept our puny brains can't seem to wrap our head around...

Chaos and order are complicated, because chaos and order can mean different things in different contexts. In this particular context chaos just simply means that the world isn't predictable, that's not 'evil' or even bad, I don't think. It just means that world isn't predictable.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I guess I'll make an effort to read more into it. I am not super interested or anything, but it seems to me that it's sometimes filled with mysticism, and sometimes just really 'dull' (subjectively).

Buddhism is fundamentally a "come and see" religion. A conceptual understanding is a necessary place to start, but the real action happens when you directly investigate it on a phenomenological basis and see if it holds up. The Buddha's name for the religion he created is "Dhamma-vinaya", or the teaching and the discipline, so doctrine and practice are together the two essential components that eventually merge down the line.

From the perspective of doctrine all you really need to understand are the Four Noble Truths. One who would reject these wouldn't really have any reason to consider himself a Buddhist in any kind of doctrinal sense. If you want to look into the practice/discipline aspect pretty much all you need is the Satipatthana sutta for the broad picture.