Having kids is immoral

[taylor]

Good luck to you Nerico. It's been fun. I have finite time and attention though, so I'm getting off here. I do hope you find what you're looking for.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Nernico

To me it sounds like "i dont like what you are saying then you are wrong"
You want be happy!!!!! Living is fun!!!!!! Having kids is fun!!!!!!!
If you want play the game of happiness and have kids for your selfish reasons go ahead but dont pretend what you are doing is the right thing.
You are deluded by the game of happiness. You are a selfish little animal scared of the truth.

You're making tons of unfounded assumptions and using them to make ad hominem attacks. Shameful.

[ZephyrusX]

I always find it somewhat odd when people separate suffering from pleasure as if the two experiences are completely separate. They are not. Death was brought up a couple of times as an example of 'suffering', however, I've heard some people describe the process of death of a loved one as 'beautiful'. In Victor Frankl's 'Man's Search for Meaning', there is a young woman in there who seems to have found some form of love and beauty in her life despite the fact that she is dying in a concentration camp. Anti-natalists grossly undermine the human capacity to find beauty and meaning in life despite and because of suffering. The premise was made that it is our moral obligation to avoid human suffering, but I reject that premise. For me, it is only valid in the most extreme cases (ie. if you know beforehand that your baby will be born with a genetic disorder - even then the decision wouldn't come easily for me).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by CroMagna

No but maybe it would be the psychologists Benatar is referring to.

Ok.

So my question is - do you agree with them?

These psychologists, who have never met you or known you or seen you ...
they are better able to accurately estimate the quality of YOUR life, CroMagna's life, than you yourself??

I'd like to understand this better - how this could be argued to be possible.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Supposed an Mr.X set up a bomb in the classroom for 5 year olds , and set it to go off 7 years from now. Would that be a wrong act?

According to you, it would not be wrong.

After all, according to you, life is suffering and therefore Mr X is doing the children a favour by making sure that they return to a state of non-existence.

Sorry, I disagree. I think that Mr X's act is very wrong, because (1) he would be killing people, and (2) human life is precious.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I always find it somewhat odd when people separate suffering from pleasure as if the two experiences are completely separate. They are not.

They are not.

Or at least the question is more complicated than often realised.

For example, to be whipped and chained is easily seen as a form of suffering ... yet some people are into that kind of sex.

To be terrified by horrible monsters and evil spirits can easily be seen as a form of suffering .... yet Harry Potter is an extremely popular movie.

Sustained physical exertion under arduous weather conditions can easily be seen as a form of suffering ... yet people participate in ultramarathons and climb mountains etc.

Etc etc

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

But, in
cases of nonidentity, we should think in impersonal terms—namely, in
terms of making the world better or worse overall than it otherwise
would or could have been.

Sure.

I think that the world is a better place, with my children here than if my children were not.

Your mother might have a different opinion of you - in which case there is some room to make the argument that for her to have children is immoral.

But you can't just willy-nilly extrapolate that position to the rest of the human race, you see.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I think that the world is a better place, with my children here than if my children were not.

This is a really excellent point.

Perhaps what might be immoral is having kids but not raising them in a way that makes the world a better place.

I don't have kids, but I look around at my cousins and my close friends, and their kids make the world a better place.

Thank you, ALG.

[elucidate]

Some people are more sensitive than others and have therefore experienced suffering to more unbearable degree than other people who are not as sensitive.

it is therefore easier to see how beliefs like anti natalism and Nernico's argument come about...if seen from their perspective. It's valid even if others here don't agree and find it repulsive.

If your life has been riddled with agony, why would you think it was a good idea to bring kids here and subject them to the same? It's an easy logic to grasp if looked at that way.

The thing to remember is not every child will experience the same degree of suffering as the people who believe it's better not to bring kids here.

[James81]

Nernico,

I think that this question is important enough to ask again:

Who ultimately decides what a positive or negative experience is?

If you're going to make a statement such as "Having kids is immoral" and then you are going to create an argument that suggests that it's immoral BECAUSE they could live a life full of strings of negative experiences, then I think this question is a very valid, important question to consider.

[Irisha]

Nerico, I absolutely agree with you.
Yes, people are mainly selfish when they decide to have children. But what is worse the society of people is selfish. The society wants people to reproduce in order to develop itself, - and not only to develop itself but to keep on having the present state of affairs, and not to make life worse without the reproduction of newer and newer people. Without reproduction who will take care of the elderly which almost everybody will become? Who will create all things that are necessary for life, and for making life better and better (otherwise life is boring for some of them)? The replies show clearly that people have those culturally sanctioned ideas deeply rooted in their minds. And 'People hear withooout listening'. They defend the point of view which is for the benefits of the society (and for their own benefits - to have this pleasure of having children, to have the support from them when they need it, etc.).
What is even worse is that this is the way people are created. They are created to be selfish. They have to be selfish because of the instinct to survive.
So, I think, we need to accept this awful truth that we all want to survive. - That's why we do not want to listen to the person who starts telling us this awful truth about our selfishness. Oh, you are not selfish? You are better, or the best?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Irisha

So, I think, we need to accept this awful truth that we all want to survive.

That is evidently untrue.

While most of us want to survive, there is always a small minority who find life so painful or meaningless that they prefer to commit suicide.

However, the fact that they are a small minority shows that most of the human race considers life to be a good thing.

If life is a good thing, then it can't really be said that having children is immoral per se.

[ZephyrusX]

I get this, but don't quite agree. Everyone suffers to varying degrees depending upon their environment. I don't believe there are people out there that suffer 'more' because they are sensitive. Some people are very good at hiding the fact that they are hurt and may come across as 'hardened', but they still hurt. The only meaningful difference I can see is that some people can still create beauty and meaning in their life despite that suffering.

Incidentally, 'selfish' behaviour have been brought up a few times in this thread, and I have to say, depression and misanthropy are two completely selfish mindsets, in my own personal experience. They are completely self-referential insofar as they rely upon the suffering and powerlessness of the self in order to generalize the human population and its societies.

Originally Posted by elucidate

Some people are more sensitive than others and have therefore experienced suffering to more unbearable degree than other people who are not as sensitive.

it is therefore easier to see how beliefs like anti natalism and Nernico's argument come about...if seen from their perspective. It's valid even if others here don't agree and find it repulsive.

If your life has been riddled with agony, why would you think it was a good idea to bring kids here and subject them to the same? It's an easy logic to grasp if looked at that way.

The thing to remember is not every child will experience the same degree of suffering as the people who believe it's better not to bring kids here.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I get this, but don't quite agree. Everyone suffers to varying degrees depending upon their environment. I don't believe there are people out there that suffer 'more' because they are sensitive. Some people are very good at hiding the fact that they are hurt and may come across as 'hardened', but they still hurt. The only meaningful difference I can see is that some people can still create beauty and meaning in their life despite that suffering.

Incidentally, 'selfish' behaviour have been brought up a few times in this thread, and I have to say, depression and misanthropy are two completely selfish mindsets, in my own personal experience. They are completely self-referential insofar as they rely upon the suffering and powerlessness of the self in order to generalize the human population and its societies.

I realize that everyone suffers to one degree or another. I will try and put it another way.

If a person is more sensitive than many other people, then that persons experience of suffering may be magnified by a thousand times...to them! To those people it would seem strange that other people could, first of all, bare their own experience of suffering, and secondly, want to subject children to that. You're right though, many people are better able to hide the fact that they are hurt.

I'm not trying to say that some people suffer more than others...just that sensitive people may find their suffering so unbearable and not be able to cope as well as more de-sensitized people seem to cope in life.

it would be hard to conceive for the sensitive person that their child would not be as sensitive as they are.

Does this make more sense?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Irisha

The replies show clearly that people have those culturally sanctioned ideas deeply rooted in their minds.

"Culturally sanctioned" - LOL.

Next, I will be told that when bacteria and petunias and owls and deer and rabbits and lions breed and produce offspring, it is also a "culturally sanctioned" idea in their minds.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If life is a good thing, then it can't really be said that having children is immoral per se.

Life is good because only the minority commit suicide?
The trick is that not only people are created in the way they have to be selfish in order to survive, but the life is also created in the way that not so many of them want to commit suicide, - otherwise there won't be life if it is so bad that nobody can stand it.
I would like to add that the word 'immoral' is just a too strong word maybe. Because the society never agree to any critisizing on the subject. The society also wants to survive. It's problematic for it to survive without reproduction.
But... Why not to discuss the actual reasons for having children per se? Why not to accept that we are really selfish? Did you ask yourself this question before you had children: "Do I have the right to bring to life a child without thinking if it will be good for him/her or not?" The majority don't. The thought that they cannot guarantee the life without suffering even doesn't come into their mind, or they try to forget about it. And this is selfish. If we accept that we have to be selfish very often, in this case there is a hope for some people to become more responsible about having children, and about educating their children. Children should be born not for their parents' fun! And not because there is this vital for the society stereotype that to have children is good!
Yes, there always will be more people who want to live. This is the trick.
But why did the Saints, the enlightened have no children? Or stop making children after they have their status?
Oh, we are not the Saints!..
We are just immoral mortals...

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"Culturally sanctioned" - LOL.

Next, I will be told that when bacteria and petunias and owls and deer and rabbits and lions breed and produce offspring, it is also a "culturally sanctioned" idea in their minds.

This is said not about reproduction per se. It's about the reasons why people defend that point of view.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Irisha

Life is good because only the minority commit suicide?

Let us be more specific.

The discussion is about non-existence versus life.

OP's argument is that having children is immoral, because you subject them to life, when they were in a state of non-existence.

Implicit in this argument is the assumption that non-existence is better than life.

Is this assumption true?

The simple way to investigate is to consider the number of people who prefer life to non-existence, or vice versa.

Since most people do not kill themselves, it is fair to sau that most people prefer life to non-existence.

The trick is that not only people are created in the way they have to be selfish in order to survive, but the life is also created in the way that not so many of them want to commit suicide, - otherwise there won't be life if it is so bad that nobody can stand it.

Notice that in general, the birds and bees and the deer and the tigers also do not commit suicide.

Now, please explain how life is created in a way such that they and homo sapiens alike similarly do not generally want to die?

Because the society never agree to any critisizing on the subject. The society also wants to survive. It's problematic for it to survive without reproduction.

Actually the issues are much more nuanced and complex.

For example, China has a "one child" policy to strongly discourage childbirth. In many developed countries, people also do not want to have too many children, if any at all. Contraceptives are also commonly available in many countries. Finally there are many situations where society does kill, or tolerate the killing, of its members or potential members. Eg capital punishment for criminals; euthanasia for the very ill; legalised abortion etc.

But... Why not to discuss the actual reasons for having children per se?

Among other reasons, because it happens to be a topic in a current thread that is already discussing it quite heavily.

Why not to accept that we are really selfish?

Because I don't think that it is selfish.

I can't see why it can be said to be selfish. As I mentioned, I think that human life is precious and valuable.

The thought that they cannot guarantee the life without suffering even doesn't come into their mind, or they try to forget about it.

Of course, one cannot guarantee it.

There are very few things in life that are 100% guaranteed. It doesn't mean that we should sit very still in a corner and do nothing with our lives, you see.

But why did the Saints, the enlightened have no children? Or stop making children after they have their status?

Who cares.

Jeffrey Dahmer the serial murderer had no children. Doesn't mean that he is moral.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Since most people do not kill themselves, it is fair to sau that most people prefer life to non-existence.

Not necessarily.

Most people who feel suicidal will not kill themselves...but that doesn't mean they don't want to. They want their pain to end, not necessarily to die. Killing yourself is not an easy thing to do, and depending on which way you look at it, it takes a fair bit of courage to actually do it. Most people don't have the level of courage to actually take their own life. It's a different kind of courage to how most people consider the word to mean though.

If you think about it...it's hard to jump off a bridge, or cut your wrists...our instinct is to survive. Doing this goes against our primal instincts.

Most people who feel suicidal will eventually find a solution to pick themselves up and out of the hole they are in. The ones who can't see a way out won't.

Notice that in general, the birds and bees and the deer and the tigers also do not commit suicide.

It could also be said they may not realize they can? We don't know? We also don't know how they experience feelings. Many people tend to humanize them and assume they feel like we do...but we don't know how they do or if they experience suffering the way we do.

Now, please explain how life is created in a way such that they and homo sapiens alike similarly do not generally want to die?

It's not that they want to die...most people don't whether suicidal or not...they just want an end to suffering. People who are suicidal feel intensely the suffering they are experiencing will not end any other way.

Jeffrey Dahmer the serial murderer had no children. Doesn't mean that he is moral.

Jeffrey Dahmer liked young men...so his reasons for not having kids were a little different to a saints.

I can't imagine too many sane women with their instincts in check would want to breed with him even if he didn't.

[Irisha]

So, you base your arguments on the assuption that life is good. I agree that it is good for this or that reason. But non-existence can be equally good. Why not? You haven't been there, how can you know? Because people don't commit suicide? They, like all those bees and tigers, have the instinct to survive, - this is how the life is wisely organized so that the Creator were not bored.

This thread is connected rather with the issues of the moral/immoral than with the discussing about non-existence vs life . It's title is "Having children is immoral".

Speaking about society I mean society as a concept , not different societies of different countries. There are different policies about reproduction in different countries, but non of those countries agree to stop existing because of the lack of reproduction.

Selfish... Even if you think that life is good it doesn't mean that non-existence cannot be good, or better in some cases, - especially for those who are going to be suffering, - so it's selfish to decide for those unborn to be born if you base your arguments not on two assumptions, but on one which seems to be better for you personally.

Sure, we cannot sit still in a corner, - it's impossible as we have to be selfish if we want to survive, and we have to do sometimes immoral things... But why not to say openly about that? Why not to be closer to the subject of the thread?

As far as the Saints and the enlightened is concerned I think we have all the reasons to care... In order at least to learn something from them, - why did they have no children? - it's important in the context of this thread... I think they knew some answer...

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

My point is that considering the question of the morality of bringing someone else into existence as an absolute "right or wrong" scenario is fallacious. That's the truth.

I agree. I can think of some plausible scenarios where procreation could be morally defensible. For example, as a way of alleviating suffering for those who currently exist. However, if it is done in the mistaken belief that they are actually benefitting the child they create (as oppossed to harming them) then they are sadly mistaken.

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"Culturally sanctioned" - LOL.

Next, I will be told that when bacteria and petunias and owls and deer and rabbits and lions breed and produce offspring, it is also a "culturally sanctioned" idea in their minds.

Animals reproduce because they have a strong sexual instinct.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Animals reproduce because they have a strong sexual instinct.

Human animals do as well...well, some do, and some aren't that sexual. We still have the drive to have sex and reproduce though.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Irisha

So, you base your arguments on the assumption that life is good. I agree that it is good for this or that reason. But non-existence can be equally good. Why not? You haven't been there, how can you know?

That is why I do not make the proposition: "Having children is moral."

I merely disagree with the proposition: "Having children is immoral", since that statement assumes that non-existence is better than life.

An even more tenuous statement, since the available evidence we have (even if debatable in itself) is quite against it.

Because people don't commit suicide? They, like all those bees and tigers, have the instinct to survive, - this is how the life is wisely organized so that the Creator were not bored.

I think that you would give Occam a fit, bringing wisdom and the Creator and his boredom into the story.

Next, you will invite people to quote the Bible and/or the Koran about populating the earth and how children are blessings from God etc.

Speaking about society I mean society as a concept , not different societies of different countries. There are different policies about reproduction in different countries, but non of those countries agree to stop existing because of the lack of reproduction.

None of these countries agree to continue existing either.

They simply exist.

For example, the USA does not say at the end of today that "Mmmm, I've decided to go on existing tomorrow." Tomorrow will come, and it will exist, and that's that.

In that sense, the USA is like petunias. They produce new flowers, new leaves, new seeds, new petunia plants. Morality has nothing to do with it. Petunias grow, because petunias grow.

Selfish... Even if you think that life is good it doesn't mean that non-existence cannot be good, or better in some cases, - especially for those who are going to be suffering, - so it's selfish to decide for those unborn to be born if you base your arguments not on two assumptions, but on one which seems to be better for you personally.

LOL, of course not.

Just because something is good for me doesn't mean that it must be bad for others.

Eg it could be good for Tom to marry Jane. That doesn't mean that it is bad for Jane to marry Tom.

Eg it could be good for Microsoft to employ Bill. That doesn't mean that it is bad for Bill to work for Microsoft.

Eg it could be good for my dog, if I were to take him for a walk. That doesn't mean that it is bad for me to go for a walk with my dog.

Eg it could be good for me to make a lot of money from my customers. That doesn't mean that it's bad for the customers to buy my goods or services.

Eg it could be good for X to receive Y's help. This doesn't mean that it is bad for Y to help X.

Similarly, it could be good for me to have a child. That doesn't mean that it's bad for the child to be born.

Also, assumptions aren't necessarily weaker just because there are more of them. For example, I could make 3 smart assumptions in any given situation. You could make 1 very stupid assumption in any given situation. Chances are high that I produce the better result.

Sure, we cannot sit still in a corner, - it's impossible as we have to be selfish if we want to survive, and we have to do sometimes immoral things... But why not to say openly about that?

Because I don't agree.

I really don't see why anybody necessarily has to be selfish to survive. And I don't see why it is necessarily so that to survive, one must do immoral things.

I am surviving today. I was around last week, and last month. What immoral, selfish things did I do today, last week, last month, to procure my own survival? Errr, none that I can recall.

What about you?

Let us not be so dramatic about this "survival" nonsense. It's not like we are living on some desolate island acting in a reality TV show.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Irisha

As far as the Saints and the enlightened is concerned I think we have all the reasons to care... In order at least to learn something from them, - why did they have no children? - it's important in the context of this thread... I think they knew some answer...

Wasn't it a part of saintly life, back in the day, to remain celibate as an act of devotion to the divine though? Ascetics back then gave their focus to serving God, and I don't know of any saints who were actually married, so the idea of reproducing whilst being single and saintly, just wasn't the done thing back then.

God was their husband/wife, and they could not reproduce with him so they just didn't have sex. That's my understanding anyway?

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Human animals do as well...well, some do, and some aren't that sexual. We still have the drive to have sex and reproduce though.

We have sexual instinct not instinct to "have kids". Thats stupid. A lion doesnt reproduce because he wants to be a dad, he reproduces because he has a strong sexual instinct. And because we have the means to have sex without the risk of procreation, such as through the use of effective contraception mechanisms, we can fulfill our biological needs without procreating.

[Nernico]

Acting like Godot,
The cure for human condition is prevention. You dont need to fix what you didnt creat/break in first place.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Nernico

We have sexual instinct not instinct to "have kids".

Not true. Many men feel that their purpose is complete, psychologically, when they have spread their seed and continued the bloodline. If that is not an instinct I don't know what is? Women have the instinct to become mothers..their bodies are built to nourish life. How do you explain that if it is not an instinct to reproduce?

A lion doesnt reproduce because he wants to be a dad, he reproduces because he has a strong sexual instinct. And because we have the means to have sex without the risk of procreation, such as through the use of effective contraception mechanisms, we can fulfill our biological needs without procreating.

He may not realize that he is reproducing when he has sex, but that is what he does isn't it! If you study lion behavior though, especially the female, you would notice that she, as with many other animals, takes to being a mother and caring for her young. She is biologically built to care for them...the same goes for women.

Not all women have that instinct, but many do. Are you gonna tell them they can't have kids that they have wanted their whole lives, because you think it's selfish?

A hundred years ago couples had sex to produce as many kids as possible, specifically to help with maintaining the farm chores and helping the mother with household duties while the husband was away in the city on business for long stretches. They wouldn't have survived without all those kids, so it wasn't just about having sex for them. That's just one example.

You're ultimate conclusion to this debate has to be that people should wipe themselves out because it's selfish for us to be here!

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

We have sexual instinct not instinct to "have kids". Thats stupid. A lion doesnt reproduce because he wants to be a dad.

How would you know? Are you a lion?

Do take a look at the animal kingdom. Contrary to what you suggest, most animals don't just have sex, lay eggs / give birth, and abandon their young. Parenting behaviour will vary from species to species, but there are numerous examples of animals, birds, reptiles, fish etc which are very interested in caring for their young.

Why would you expect humans to be any different?


Father carrying son.


Father carrying son.


Mother feeding babies.


Mother feeding babies.


Daddy is babysitting.


Daddy is babysitting.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Acting like Godot,
The cure for human condition is prevention. You dont need to fix what you didnt creat/break in first place.

A cure is needed, if there is a disease.

Are you a disease?

Perhaps you regard yourself in that way, but hey, speak for yourself ok?