Having kids is immoral

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by elucidate

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?


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!

Complete ********. People have kids because of their selfish desires, theres no biological drive to have kids. Its all the desire of feeling pleasure in having and raising kids. Its all the desire of be happy!!!!!!
Theres nothing so selfish as creating someone for your happiness gambling with someone life for satisfaction of idiot desires.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Complete ********. People have kids because of their selfish desires, theres no biological drive to have kids. Its all the desire of feeling pleasure in having and raising kids. Its all the desire of be happy!!!!!!
Theres nothing so selfish as creating someone for your happiness gambling with someone life for satisfaction of idiot desires.

So...you're saying that women's mammary glands produce milk for the sole purpose of their pleasure? Is that what you are seriously trying to tell me here, because I think there are more than a couple of holes in your argument sir.

Are sperm produced daily for the sole purpose of man's pleasure? Why on earth would there need to be sperm...the vital component in producing life, if it was just about pleasure?

Now, I'm not saying you aren't right that most people choose to have kids for their selfish desires...but to say that we only have sex for pleasure...well, that's just nonsense.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by elucidate

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.

Male lions will be aggressive to other male lion's cubs. But they will at least tolerate their own.

Degree of fatherly involvement varies from species to species. Wolves are one example of carnivorous mammals where the father is closely involved in caring for the offspring. Daddy wolves will regularly carry meat from their kills, back for their cubs.

Bringing home the bacon is what we humans call it.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Male lions will be aggressive to other male lion's cubs. But they will at least tolerate their own.

Degree of fatherly involvement varies from species to species. Wolves are one example of carnivorous mammals where the father is closely involved in caring for the offspring. Daddy wolves will regularly carry meat from their kills, back for their cubs.

Bringing home the bacon is what we humans call it.

Yes, I didn't mean to neglect to acknowledge the fatherly involvement there...just that mammaries were the first thing that came to mind (maybe I'm more male than female,eh?)

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Theres nothing so selfish as creating someone for your happiness gambling with someone life for satisfaction of idiot desires.

Your statement is understandable, if:

(1) you hate your parents
(2) your life is pitiful and pathetic
(3) you consider happiness to be an "idiot desire".

Therefore I feel very sorry for you, if you are right. It must be very painful being you.

[elucidate]

Yeah, I'm not sure where the idea that there is something inherently wrong with wanting to be happy came from, but ok??

I think most people assume that kids would want to be here, since they do. That would make sense don't you think? They may not be thinking in terms of "well inevitably my child will suffer, so maybe I shouldn't bring them here", but when you are in love you don't really think about things like that, you generally just feel so happy you want to create something as an extension of that happiness.

That's not always the case, and there are a lot of really unconscious people out there who definitely don't consider the life of the child before hand and shouldn't be reproducing, but I think for many people it's true. They just aren't thinking about the suffering side of things.

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Yeah, I'm not sure where the idea that there is something inherently wrong with wanting to be happy came from, but ok??

I think most people assume that kids would want to be here, since they do. That would make sense don't you think? They may not be thinking in terms of "well inevitably my child will suffer, so maybe I shouldn't bring them here", but when you are in love you don't really think about things like that, you generally just feel so happy you want to create something as an extension of that happiness.

That's not always the case, and there are a lot of really unconscious people out there who definitely don't consider the life of the child before hand and shouldn't be reproducing, but I think for many people it's true. They just aren't thinking about the suffering side of things.

Explain to me then how a non-existent being can be deprived of pleasant mental states and how this deprivation ever constitutes a moral duty based purely on the interests of the potential person to bring said person into existence.

Explain to me why some people spend their entire adult lives regretting that they were born only to take their own lives in a bathtub drenched in their own blood.

I'm still waiting.

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Your statement is understandable, if:

(1) you hate your parents
(2) your life is pitiful and pathetic
(3) you consider happiness to be an "idiot desire".

Therefore I feel very sorry for you, if you are right. It must be very painful being you.

Explain me whats the utility of happiness?
You are irrationally attached to your existence, whether you have a irrational fear of your own 'death' and you cant stomach the absurdity of being a sentient being in a meaningless universe.

[Nernico]

"If the act of procreation were neither the outcome of a desire nor accompanied by feelings of pleasure, but a matter to be decided on the basis of purely rational considerations, is it likely the human race would still exist? Would each of us not rather have felt so much pity for the coming generation as to prefer to spare it the burden of existence, or at least not wish to take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?" Arthur Schopenhauer

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Would each of us not rather have felt so much pity for the coming generation as to prefer to spare it the burden of existence, or at least not wish to take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?" Arthur Schopenhauer

No, I do not feel pity for the coming generation. And I do not think that existence is a burden. I think that life is a precious and wonderful thing, and all generations should cherish it.

As for Arthur Schopenhauer, the very first thing that Wikipedia says about him is that he is a German philosopher "well-known for his pessimism". Perhaps he too had lousy parents.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Explain why some people choose not have kids.

There happens to be a thread in another part of the forum about that. People have given various reasons such as "I want to have the freedom to travel", "I do not want the financial responsibility", "I am afraid of childbirth", "I wish to focus on my career."

No one has said "having children is immoral".

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

I am still waiting for someone to explain how assymetry is not logic.

You are better off learning how to spell that word properly. Your teacher will deduct marks from your next Philo 101 essay, for bad spelling.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Explain me whats the utility of happiness?

What a dumb question.

If you prefer, then let me wish for you frustration, anger, grief, depression, a thousand anxieties and deep unhappiness.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Explain to me why some people spend their entire adult lives regretting that they were born only to take their own lives in a bathtub drenched in their own blood.

Perhaps it was the bad influence of Arthur Schopenhauer.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Nernico

I am still waiting for someone to explain how assymetry is not logic.

Because it's actually symetrical. A non-existent being can't experience pain or pleasure. You might argue that pain is inevitable while pleasure is anything but guaranteed, but I would say that is a good reason to value and share pleasure instead of not procreating.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Nernico

Explain me whats the utility of happiness?
You are irrationally attached to your existence, whether you have a irrational fear of your own 'death' and you cant stomach the absurdity of being a sentient being in a meaningless universe.

Explain to me how anything else has utility? If there is no utility of happiness, what is your value for assigning utility?

If you find no inherent meaning in life or this world or anything in it, that is your prerogative, but don't assume that your beliefs are objectively true just because you, through accident of circumstance, happen to believe them, and don't be surprised if other people prefer to be happy than miserable!

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

No, I do not feel pity for the coming generation. And I do not think that existence is a burden. I think that life is a precious and wonderful thing, and all generations should cherish it.

As for Arthur Schopenhauer, the very first thing that Wikipedia says about him is that he is a German philosopher "well-known for his pessimism". Perhaps he too had lousy parents.

The interesting thing is that pessimists view pessimism as being closer to realistic than optimism. Optimists can't see that because they see optimism as being the only way to look at something. Both extremes think they're right.

Both have value in their own way...though it's probably best to develop a certain level of optimism in life. The same could be said about pessimism though.

Optimism is really hoping everything will turn out ok and believing that it will without any evidence that it will, which is kinda like blind faith...the same as christians live by, whereas pessimism is taking the stance that it probably won't so it's better to just accept that and do whatever you can to prevent further pain. From the depressed state, people who are happy are just ridiculous, and happy people think the same of miserable people.

Lousy parents can definitely cause pessimism in future adults...which is a valid reason for most people to deal with their issues before becoming parents.

It's not anyone's fault that they landed lousy parents, but it's up to them not to let their influence ruin the rest of their lives.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Nernico

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.

I think my existence has benefitted me personally. I thank my parents for it. My example goes to show that you're the one who is sadly mistaken.

[elucidate]

What's funny is when an eternal optimist winds up in love with a die hard pez! The whole opposites attract thing is pretty wacky...but that's for another thread.

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by elucidate

The interesting thing is that pessimists view pessimism as being closer to realistic than optimism. Optimists can't see that because they see optimism as being the only way to look at something. Both extremes think they're right.

Both have value in their own way...though it's probably best to develop a certain level of optimism in life. The same could be said about pessimism though.

Optimism is really hoping everything will turn out ok and believing that it will without any evidence that it will, which is kinda like blind faith...the same as christians live by, whereas pessimism is taking the stance that it probably won't so it's better to just accept that and do whatever you can to prevent further pain. From the depressed state, people who are happy are just ridiculous, and happy people think the same of miserable people.

Lousy parents can definitely cause pessimism in future adults...which is a valid reason for most people to deal with their issues before becoming parents.

It's not anyone's fault that they landed lousy parents, but it's up to them not to let their influence ruin the rest of their lives.

The injuction to "always look on the bright side" should be greeted with a large dose of both septicism and cynicism. To insist the the bright side is always the right side is to put ideology before evidence. every cloud to change metaphors, may have a silver lining, but it may very often be the cloud rather then the lining on which one should focus if one is to avoid being drenched in self-deception.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nernico

The injuction to "always look on the bright side" should be greeted with a large dose of both septicism and cynicism. To insist the the bright side is always the right side is to put ideology before evidence.

Yawn

If life is meaningless and happiness has no point and the preferred state is non-existence, then what utility could skepticism; cynicism; rightness or evidence possibly have?

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Because it's actually symetrical. A non-existent being can't experience pain or pleasure. You might argue that pain is inevitable while pleasure is anything but guaranteed, but I would say that is a good reason to value and share pleasure instead of not procreating.

But even if life is beneficial overall, it doesn't follow that it was permissible to subject someone to it. Children often, resentfully, point out to their parents that ‘they didn't choose to be born’. They have a point. Ordinarily it is wrong to subject someone to something; ordinarily we must gain someone's consent before doing something that will significantly affect them. To subject someone to a life is to significantly affect them without their prior consent.

You might object that procreative acts do not affect those they bring into existence. Someone who has been brought into existence didn't exist previously and so cannot have been made better or worse off and so was not affected. But anyone who takes such a view is going to have to judge that someone whose life is clearly not going to be worth living (someone whose life will be characterised by constant, chronic pain) has not been negatively affected by being subjected to an existence. I think this is highly counter-intuitive. Furthermore, if you can't be negatively affected by being brought into existence, you can't be positively affected either. Existence cannot be a benefit for the existent.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Nernico

But even if life is beneficial overall, it doesn't follow that it was permissible to subject someone to it. Children often, resentfully, point out to their parents that ‘they didn't choose to be born’. They have a point. Ordinarily it is wrong to subject someone to something; ordinarily we must gain someone's consent before doing something that will significantly affect them. To subject someone to a life is to significantly affect them without their prior consent.

Life is traumatic, and yeah, many kids have said this to their parents. I said it when I was deeply depressed and traumatized and going through hell and my parents didn't even notice or thought I was faking it to get out of working.

Adults have this way of going into denial about anything that's bad or unpleasant about life, and tend to want to think everything is rosy, and they also get really caught up in their own lives and don't think about how their behavior impacts their children...so I can see what you are saying. Children don't have the coping mechanisms at that age to be able to deal with pain and suffering the way adults, or most adults garner as they get older.

You might object that procreative acts do not affect those they bring into existence. Someone who has been brought into existence didn't exist previously and so cannot have been made better or worse off and so was not affected. But anyone who takes such a view is going to have to judge that someone whose life is clearly not going to be worth living (someone whose life will be characterised by constant, chronic pain) has not been negatively affected by being subjected to an existence. I think this is highly counter-intuitive. Furthermore, if you can't be negatively affected by being brought into existence, you can't be positively affected either. Existence cannot be a benefit for the existent.

You're assuming that every childs life is like this though.

If you are a person born with a degenerative disease which causes chronic pain in your muscles every second of every day and you have to eat liquid food only through a straw every day and have someone wipe your ass every time you go to the toilet, then yeah, life sucks...but most people who have these situations grow to adapt to them and many of them become highly achieving people who put the rest of us to shame because they are so determined to get the most out of their lives and use what faculties they have that are not effected by their disease.

Those people could choose to die and they don't...they choose to live.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Nernico

I am sorry but english isnt my native language.

Even more reason for a lesson or two.

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Life is traumatic, and yeah, many kids have said this to their parents. I said it when I was deeply depressed and traumatized and going through hell and my parents didn't even notice or thought I was faking it to get out of working.

Adults have this way of going into denial about anything that's bad or unpleasant about life, and tend to want to think everything is rosy, and they also get really caught up in their own lives and don't think about how their behavior impacts their children...so I can see what you are saying. Children don't have the coping mechanisms at that age to be able to deal with pain and suffering the way adults, or most adults garner as they get older.



You're assuming that every childs life is like this though.

If you are a person born with a degenerative disease which causes chronic pain in your muscles every second of every day and you have to eat liquid food only through a straw every day and have someone wipe your ass every time you go to the toilet, then yeah, life sucks...but most people who have these situations grow to adapt to them and many of them become highly achieving people who put the rest of us to shame because they are so determined to get the most out of their lives and use what faculties they have that are not effected by their disease.

Those people could choose to die and they don't...they choose to live.

The view the some people experience extreme suffer and they regard it as a bad thing and they prefer they were never born is a fact.

Its how assymetry works. The aims of antinatalism is protect unecessary harm to potential unhappy people.
Potential happy people arent DEPRIVED of wonderful life experiences, they arent a less better state then people who are alive because theres no deprivation of pleasant mental states.

By not being brought to existence potential unhappy people will not be harmed whats morally good. Its a moral OBLIGATION preventing harm even if you are preventing harm for a minority.


Our moral obligation to furnish other people's life with happiness (assuming of course we even have such an obligation) is in no way, shape or form comparable to or capable of over-weighing our moral obligation to avoid causing other people unnecessary harm. Consider, for instance, the example of a pilot flying over an urban area and dropping gold bullion from the helicopter onto the streets below. Although many, perhaps even the majority of people, underneath the helicopter would benefit from such a reckless act of generosity by the pilot, this benefit would be more than swallowed up and negated by even the single incidence of someone being maimed or killed as a result of the pilot's actions.

Iif you agree with me that the pilot has behaved irresponsibly then you need to be consistent and accept that exposing some people to harm by bringing them into the world with the intention that they will benefit as a result of this is, at best misguided, and, at worst, downright immoral.

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by JSB

Explain to me how anything else has utility? If there is no utility of happiness, what is your value for assigning utility?

If you find no inherent meaning in life or this world or anything in it, that is your prerogative, but don't assume that your beliefs are objectively true just because you, through accident of circumstance, happen to believe them, and don't be surprised if other people prefer to be happy than miserable!

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Nernico

The view the some people experience extreme suffer and they regard it as a bad thing and they prefer they were never born is a fact.

Some being the operative word here.

Judging by the amount of people in this thread who have posted that they do not regret being born and actually feel like they have benefited from being here counteracts your assumption that all people feel the same about suffering.

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

No, I do not feel pity for the coming generation. And I do not think that existence is a burden. I think that life is a precious and wonderful thing, and all generations should cherish it.

As for Arthur Schopenhauer, the very first thing that Wikipedia says about him is that he is a German philosopher "well-known for his pessimism". Perhaps he too had lousy parents.

Life is not a gift, life is an imposition. You can reject a gift but you cant reject existence. The view the life is a wonderful experience is purely subjective. For you life can be amazing for others its a terrible agony.

[Nernico]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Some being the operative word here.

Judging by the amount of people in this thread who have posted that they do not regret being born and actually feel like they have benefited from being here counteracts your assumption that all people feel the same about suffering.

I am not saying everyone feel the same about suffer, procreation should be avoided according to the "rights" of people who would be extremelly harmed by existence and would regard it as a bad thing.
Preventing harm is a moral obligation cant you understand that?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Nernico

I am not saying everyone feel the same about suffer, procreation should be avoided according to the "rights" of people who would be extremelly harmed by existence.
Preventing harm is a moral obligation cant you understand that?

I understand what you are saying, there's no need to be so rude and aggressive.

You sound like a militant vegan for goodness sake!

Do you eat meat? Do you have a problem with the eating of animals or do you consider them below us and therefore not worthy of the same consideration you would give a child? I'm curious.