Support NeoGAF

[SquiddyCracker]

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.

It is selfish because you gain joy from them experiencing the world and its wonders. Following someone around doesn't give you that same vicarious experiencing I imagine, but that would be a selfish act too - sure.
My point is that if so much of what we do is for selfish purposes, why wouldn't creating a child also be a selfish act?

It being selfish or not is anyway not a good argument against not having one.

 

[shanshan310]

It is selfish because you gain joy from them experiencing the world and its wonders. Following someone around doesn't give you that same vicarious experiencing I imagine, but that would be a selfish act too - sure.
My point is that if so much of what we do is for selfish purposes, why wouldn't creating a child also be a selfish act?

It being selfish or not is anyway not a good argument against not having one.

I think that it can be selfish, but it doesn't always have to be. What about in cases where the child is adopted out, for example?

If people didn't have children for selfish reasons there wouldn't be many people left, so yeah I agree with the last part

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I think that it can be selfish, but it doesn't always have to be. What about in cases where the child is adopted out, for example?

If people didn't have children for selfish reasons there wouldn't be many people left, so yeah I agree

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with being a bit selfish.
It being a selfish act does not make it an immoral act. The word selfish just got such an unfair rep from being thrown around as an insult.

Being selfish is good, if anything. It means you care about yourself, that you're interested in seeing your... well, interests met - which you need in order to become happy.

 

[Colin.]

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.

Any reason I can think of only leads back to self gain, apart from surrogates. The world population has been steadily increasing over the years, declining population definitely isn't a concern for the vast majority of countries. It certainly isn't the norm for teenage girls, but it has become more of a trend over the last couple of decades, in the UK at least.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

You are assuming that life is horrible and ignoring all the good things about it, which seems like a personal problem to me.

Why do you make the connection between having children and inflicting pain? Why can't it be giving someone the opportunity to experience the joy of life? Will that person suffer at some point? Yes, but isn't it also true that s/he will also experience laugh, love, sex, happiness? If I have the choice I'd rather exist than not.

 

[Cyan]

I think the OP might find this essay interesting.

Reading it actually clarified something for me, which is that I had simply assumed the OP was arguing from a utilitarian perspective, but thought that life always contained more suffering than happiness. Where it's possible he holds something more like the viewpoint discussed in the essay--negative utilitarianism, in which suffering is weighed more heavily in the moral calculus than happiness (or happiness is weighed not at all).

I still disagree with the viewpoint (and with the consent argument), but it at least clarifies that the OP might not simply be depressed.

 

[Gamble]

I don't know man, I think you are over-thinking the process.

See a doctor

The correct answer is to go in a time machine, ask the person who was already born if they'd rather have been born or not, and if they say "No I'd rather not be born" then go back in time to before they were conceived and tell the parents not to do it with a signed affidavit by the not yet existing person.

Problem. Solved.

This...all of it....

 

[Artanisix]

these kids will be forced to suffer the pain of being alive

Oh come on. That is one hell of a premise.

 

[Raonak]

The problem is that immoral is a relative term.
Your view on life is like a fundamnetal christian's view on premaritial sex. both being immoral to you guys, but being totally a normal for me.



Since emotions are just chemical reactions, what if you could genetically engineer a child that couldn't ever feel sad, or pain, then is that any better?

 

[equippedwithtowel]

OP would be wise to listen to Gandalf on this matter

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

 

[braves01]

I think the OP might find this essay interesting.

Reading it actually clarified something for me, which is that I had simply assumed the OP was arguing from a utilitarian perspective, but thought that life always contained more suffering than happiness. Where it's possible he holds something more like the viewpoint discussed in the essay--negative utilitarianism, in which suffering is weighed more heavily in the moral calculus than happiness (or happiness is weighed not at all).

I still disagree with the viewpoint (and with the consent argument), but it at least clarifies that the OP might not simply be depressed.

Good essay that more coherently treats an area I was stumbling over or maybe towards. I'll look into presentism and the other more widely accepted variations of utilitarianism he mentions toward the end.