Antinatalism

[DeGaul]

I'm curious if anyone will be willing to have a rational discussion about this, but I'll put the question out there: Is it moral to have children?

 

Let me explain some: This world is filled with pain and tragedy, and although there is happiness as well, there is no guarantee that a child will experience happiness. The only guarantee is that a child will experience pain and loss, and ultimately death. If the moral thing to do is to try and decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world, isn't it rather selfish and a little immoral to have a child and force it to go through all the suffering of life with no guarantee of happiness? And since a child who is never born (a non-existent being) can't miss out on the few joys that life does offer, not having children certainly doesn't seem to be increasing suffering in the world.

 

I don't know that I would say that having a child is flat out immoral, but I certainly wonder if it isn't perhaps a basically selfish action and is perhaps morally suspect.

[Overcame Faith]

I'm curious if anyone will be willing to have a rational discussion about this, but I'll put the question out there: Is it moral to have children?

 

Let me explain some: This world is filled with pain and tragedy, and although there is happiness as well, there is no guarantee that a child will experience happiness. The only guarantee is that a child will experience pain and loss, and ultimately death. If the moral thing to do is to try and decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world, isn't it rather selfish and a little immoral to have a child and force it to go through all the suffering of life with no guarantee of happiness? And since a child who is never born (a non-existent being) can't miss out on the few joys that life does offer, not having children certainly doesn't seem to be increasing suffering in the world.

 

I don't know that I would say that having a child is flat out immoral, but I certainly wonder if it isn't perhaps a basically selfish action and is perhaps morally suspect.

 

I don't think the desire to want children is selfish or immoral at all. I think it is built into us after several billion years of evolution as a prime directive, so to speak. And that prime directive is to reproduce so the species can continue to thrive. Now, don't get me wrong on this, either. I am not suggesting in the slightest that if one chooses not to have children that they are going against their nature or anything like that. That's a choice that is perfectly acceptable just as the choice to have children is perfectly acceptable.

 

Concerning the pain, while it is true that there is pain associated with life, there is far more to life than that. It is true that for some people there is more pain to life than joy. But it is also true that for some people there is more joy to life than pain. Hopefully, those who are fortunate enough to have more joy than pain, will aid those who have more pain than joy to begin tipping the scales more in favor of joy.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Having children is an ammoral act. We're born with the instincts that kept our parents, grandparents, etc... alive. So as a result, we follow our instincts, we kill plants and animals to eat them. Then we get with eachother to create babies, to repeat the process. Morals are to better our species survival and for us all to live better lives to the best of our abilities.

[RankStranger]

I'm curious if anyone will be willing to have a rational discussion about this, but I'll put the question out there: Is it moral to have children?

 

Let me explain some: This world is filled with pain and tragedy, and although there is happiness as well, there is no guarantee that a child will experience happiness. The only guarantee is that a child will experience pain and loss, and ultimately death. If the moral thing to do is to try and decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world, isn't it rather selfish and a little immoral to have a child and force it to go through all the suffering of life with no guarantee of happiness? And since a child who is never born (a non-existent being) can't miss out on the few joys that life does offer, not having children certainly doesn't seem to be increasing suffering in the world.

 

I don't know that I would say that having a child is flat out immoral, but I certainly wonder if it isn't perhaps a basically selfish action and is perhaps morally suspect.

 

I've considered this question- it was first posed to me by a guy I knew who had at least 5 kids at the time, by three different women.

 

I've gone back and forth over the years. I can see your point. And if I was living in really shitty circumstances where the kid couldn't be properly cared for or have any real hope for the future- then popping out more kids would be a shitty thing to do.

 

But the way I look at it, my personal circumstances are mediocre at worst. They're pretty damn good by world standards. The wife and I are both highly functional, adaptable, responsible people. I see no reason why it would be immoral for us to reproduce. The kid would have a better chance than most at a happy, fulfilling life.

 

So for us it's just a question of whether or not we feel like having a kid and/or get around to it. We've been together for 11 years now and still haven't got around to it. Don't know yet whether we will or not.

[SirPhoenix]

Right and wrong are relative. Children are a choice that is right for some and wrong for others.

[Ro-bear]

Every decision we make may be questioned morally. Every time you start your car, you are putting pollutants in the air and money in the pockets of dictators. When you leave your driveway, you put lives at risk.

 

My wife and I had babies because we wanted to. They are happy and so are we. Who knows what will be the case tomorrow, but I will not be paralyzed by fear.

[DeGaul]

I appreciate the responses I have received so far, but I still haven't seen anyone really address the heart of my question: Whether we are biologically conditioned to have children is irrelevant. Just because we are programed to do something doesn't mean that it is right. In addition, I reject Overcame Faith's "joy" arithmetic. Can we really balance suffering and joy? If a person is born, grows up, and is subsequently raped, is there any joy in this life that can make that rape "okay"? I would say not. I would say that a person may learn to live with suffering, but no amount of joy cancels suffering out. I would say that I find the reply that morality is about human thriving the most adequate reply so far. Indeed, we evolved morality as a part of our process of surviving as a species, but we also evolved self-consciousness in the process, and now that we have the ability to consider our situation in the cosmos, I don't know that I can unequivocally say that the human species is something worth continuing. Contrary to what you may think Ro-bear, I don't ask this question out of fear, but out of the long considered intellectual position that now that we have attained self-consciousness we are finally able to see that life is truly a "feat of Chaos", the endless and mindless murder and consumption of one form of matter by another.....stretching across time and space....with no purpose and no metaphysical value. In this context, having children strikes me as being perhaps very selfish, bringing new life into this mayhem for the satisfaction of our own biological drives and emotional satisfaction.

[RankStranger]

I appreciate the responses I have received so far, but I still haven't seen anyone really address the heart of my question: Whether we are biologically conditioned to have children is irrelevant. Just because we are programed to do something doesn't mean that it is right. In addition, I reject Overcame Faith's "joy" arithmetic. Can we really balance suffering and joy? If a person is born, grows up, and is subsequently raped, is there any joy in this life that can make that rape "okay"? I would say not. I would say that a person may learn to live with suffering, but no amount of joy cancels suffering out. I would say that I find the reply that morality is about human thriving the most adequate reply so far. Indeed, we evolved morality as a part of our process of surviving as a species, but we also evolved self-consciousness in the process, and now that we have the ability to consider our situation in the cosmos, I don't know that I can unequivocally say that the human species is something worth continuing. Contrary to what you may think Ro-bear, I don't ask this question out of fear, but out of the long considered intellectual position that now that we have attained self-consciousness we are finally able to see that life is truly a "feat of Chaos", the endless and mindless murder and consumption of one form of matter by another.....stretching across time and space....with no purpose and no metaphysical value. In this context, having children strikes me as being perhaps very selfish, bringing new life into this mayhem for the satisfaction of our own biological drives and emotional satisfaction.

 

Can you define "right" in this context?

 

"right" by what standard?

[Yrth]

I'm curious if anyone will be willing to have a rational discussion about this, but I'll put the question out there: Is it moral to have children?

 

Let me explain some: This world is filled with pain and tragedy, and although there is happiness as well, there is no guarantee that a child will experience happiness. The only guarantee is that a child will experience pain and loss, and ultimately death. If the moral thing to do is to try and decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world, isn't it rather selfish and a little immoral to have a child and force it to go through all the suffering of life with no guarantee of happiness? And since a child who is never born (a non-existent being) can't miss out on the few joys that life does offer, not having children certainly doesn't seem to be increasing suffering in the world.

 

I don't know that I would say that having a child is flat out immoral, but I certainly wonder if it isn't perhaps a basically selfish action and is perhaps morally suspect.

Troll.

By your "logic," we should blow up the world to prevent all that future suffering. Tell me, if life is so bad, why don't you just go /wrists and put me out of your misery? No one is 'forcing' you to keep on living, and no one is forcing their kids to keep on living either.

Having kids is an inherently moral act. You are bringing life into the world, it is the ultimate gift. creatio ex nihilo. & life values itself axiomatically, it doesn't need some broke-ass utilitarianism to justify its next meal.

Shoo troll, I'm livin' here.

[Ro-bear]

I appreciate the responses I have received so far, but I still haven't seen anyone really address the heart of my question: Whether we are biologically conditioned to have children is irrelevant. Just because we are programed to do something doesn't mean that it is right. In addition, I reject Overcame Faith's "joy" arithmetic. Can we really balance suffering and joy? If a person is born, grows up, and is subsequently raped, is there any joy in this life that can make that rape "okay"? I would say not. I would say that a person may learn to live with suffering, but no amount of joy cancels suffering out. I would say that I find the reply that morality is about human thriving the most adequate reply so far. Indeed, we evolved morality as a part of our process of surviving as a species, but we also evolved self-consciousness in the process, and now that we have the ability to consider our situation in the cosmos, I don't know that I can unequivocally say that the human species is something worth continuing. Contrary to what you may think Ro-bear, I don't ask this question out of fear, but out of the long considered intellectual position that now that we have attained self-consciousness we are finally able to see that life is truly a "feat of Chaos", the endless and mindless murder and consumption of one form of matter by another.....stretching across time and space....with no purpose and no metaphysical value. In this context, having children strikes me as being perhaps very selfish, bringing new life into this mayhem for the satisfaction of our own biological drives and emotional satisfaction.

 

Can you define "right" in this context?

 

"right" by what standard?

 

Meant to cancel post. Sorry.

[Ro-bear]

Contrary to what you may think Ro-bear, I don't ask this question out of fear, but out of the long considered intellectual position that now that we have attained self-consciousness we are finally able to see that life is truly a "feat of Chaos", the endless and mindless murder and consumption of one form of matter by another.....stretching across time and space....with no purpose and no metaphysical value. In this context, having children strikes me as being perhaps very selfish, bringing new life into this mayhem for the satisfaction of our own biological drives and emotional satisfaction.

 

 

If life has no objective purpose or worth, what do I care? It has purpose and value for me. I like it. My kids like it. We are all happy to be here. Life is what you make it.

[gypsy79]

Right and wrong are relative. Children are a choice that is right for some and wrong for others.

 

I agree with SirPhoenix here.

 

To respond to the OP's question about selfishness, certainly many people have children out of selfishness. For some, it is probably just a hint of selfishness balanced by other motives and, for others, it is probably complete and total selfishness. For others, it is somewhere in between. A spectrum.

[SilentLoner]

Its all about circumstance. I'm guessing this question is related to overpopulation - which lets be real, is a serious problem. O fcourse we can't stop reproducing alltogether if we want to avoid exticntion, but lets be rational and realize that the world can only hold the current population is because around 2 billion of that population lives in dirt poverty.

I will say people who blindly procliam that births should go on unabated or that "all life is sacred/good" are seriously deluded idiots IMHO. Personally if I ever become a parent it will be through adoption or being a foster parent.

[florduh]

Just because we are programed to do something doesn't mean that it is right.

It may seem "right" or "wrong" to some individuals, but in reality it is biological imperative and just is. If there is a "right" thing it would be a moral imperative to make the planet more hospitable for the inevitable life that will populate it.

[JadedAtheist]

You can only judge people having children to be "immoral" only if there is some objective basis to define morality (i.e. an eternal law giver, lol). Unless you have that, all actions are amoral. Also, every decision we make is selfish. Even a selfless act has a selfish motive. It's all about what *I* desire.

[Yrth]

Its all about circumstance. I'm guessing this question is related to overpopulation - which lets be real, is a serious problem. O fcourse we can't stop reproducing alltogether if we want to avoid exticntion, but lets be rational and realize that the world can only hold the current population is because around 2 billion of that population lives in dirt poverty.

I will say people who blindly procliam that births should go on unabated or that "all life is sacred/good" are seriously deluded idiots IMHO. Personally if I ever become a parent it will be through adoption or being a foster parent.

lol. Not everything is about abortion. He's arguing that human life is per se pain and suffering, and that therefore bringing more human life into the equation is immoral and selfish. I get that overpopulation may be relevant in certain -extreme- situations, but that's not what he's considering. Also, the problem with overpopulation isn't that there are too many people, it's that there are too few or unequally distributed resources for everyone. Dwindling resources doesn't make your life more or less valuable. People who fail to realize this are deluded idiots im"H"o.

[Overcame Faith]

In addition, I reject Overcame Faith's "joy" arithmetic. Can we really balance suffering and joy? If a person is born, grows up, and is subsequently raped, is there any joy in this life that can make that rape "okay"? I would say not. I would say that a person may learn to live with suffering, but no amount of joy cancels suffering out.

 

Perhaps for you once something terrible happens in your life, the "joys" of life can never overcome the terrible event. That's sad and I hope you learn differently as you continue to live and learn. But the way you feel cannot be applied across the board to others. There clearly are people who are raped and still find great joy in life. I reject your entirely pessimistic view of the joys of life.

[MagickMonkey]

I appreciate the responses I have received so far, but I still haven't seen anyone really address the heart of my question: Whether we are biologically conditioned to have children is irrelevant. Just because we are programed to do something doesn't mean that it is right. In addition, I reject Overcame Faith's "joy" arithmetic. Can we really balance suffering and joy? If a person is born, grows up, and is subsequently raped, is there any joy in this life that can make that rape "okay"? I would say not. I would say that a person may learn to live with suffering, but no amount of joy cancels suffering out. I would say that I find the reply that morality is about human thriving the most adequate reply so far. Indeed, we evolved morality as a part of our process of surviving as a species, but we also evolved self-consciousness in the process, and now that we have the ability to consider our situation in the cosmos, I don't know that I can unequivocally say that the human species is something worth continuing. Contrary to what you may think Ro-bear, I don't ask this question out of fear, but out of the long considered intellectual position that now that we have attained self-consciousness we are finally able to see that life is truly a "feat of Chaos", the endless and mindless murder and consumption of one form of matter by another.....stretching across time and space....with no purpose and no metaphysical value. In this context, having children strikes me as being perhaps very selfish, bringing new life into this mayhem for the satisfaction of our own biological drives and emotional satisfaction.

 

Keep in mind there is no objective ultimate answer to your question since morality is subjective at its roots, so don't over-think this. Nothing is guaranteed, but one can do an ok job of gauging whether or not having kids is a good thing. Perhaps it would be beneficial to mankind as a whole for intelligent people to have more kids. Most people might agree that a decreasing birth rate is good, and this seems to be the trend in industrialized nations.

 

A few years back, I found out that my parents are both carriers of a gene that leads to susceptibility of getting type I diabetes (or maybe not both if the type 1 diabetes trait is recessive rather than dominate. I'll add researching this to my long list of things to do). My sister got type 1 diabetes in her twenties. She's currently pregnant. I have to wonder if it is a good thing to have a kid knowing you've got a genetic defect. Also, if both my parents were carriers of this gene , its very likely that I am a carrier. Perhaps it wasn't good for humanity for me to have had kids. Perhaps if my kids are carriers, they shouldn't have kids themselves. Then again, certainly no one has a genome free of defects.

[MagickMonkey]

You can only judge people having children to be "immoral" only if there is some objective basis to define morality (i.e. an eternal law giver, lol). Unless you have that, all actions are amoral. Also, every decision we make is selfish. Even a selfless act has a selfish motive. It's all about what *I* desire.

 

Even with an eternal law giver, there would be no objective basis for morality. Morality based on the eternal law giver's law rests on the subjective assertion that the law giver's law has value.

[DeGaul]

The question about the subjectivity of morality is a good one. Yes, I agree. Morality is subjective, but I also believe we tend to base our morality on the concept of suffering. I would hope some of you agree with me on this, as I think I'm right in that it is a fairly pervasive view.

 

From the point of view of suffering, I still wonder if we can justify having children. Pockets, you are completely at a loss for understanding what I'm saying. I'm talking about reducing suffering, so obviously I don't want to kill myself or destroy the world. Both actions will just increase suffering in this world, either for my family in particular or for the family of others. What I'm concerned with is decreasing future suffering.

 

I mentioned when I started this post that I haven't made up my mind on this issue, and I'm very moved by those posters who suggest that perhaps being careful about when we have children and doing genetic screening and such would be commendable. Perhaps we could imagine a method by which we can reliably reduce human suffering, and likely we'll be able to use science to help support such a method, but still......

 

I don't know. It is going to take a lot more than optimism to make me think that life is necessarily moral or necessarily a gift.

[MagickMonkey]

The question about the subjectivity of morality is a good one. Yes, I agree. Morality is subjective, but I also believe we tend to base our morality on the concept of suffering. I would hope some of you agree with me on this, as I think I'm right in that it is a fairly pervasive view.

 

From the point of view of suffering, I still wonder if we can justify having children. Pockets, you are completely at a loss for understanding what I'm saying. I'm talking about reducing suffering, so obviously I don't want to kill myself or destroy the world. Both actions will just increase suffering in this world, either for my family in particular or for the family of others. What I'm concerned with is decreasing future suffering.

 

I mentioned when I started this post that I haven't made up my mind on this issue, and I'm very moved by those posters who suggest that perhaps being careful about when we have children and doing genetic screening and such would be commendable. Perhaps we could imagine a method by which we can reliably reduce human suffering, and likely we'll be able to use science to help support such a method, but still......

 

I don't know. It is going to take a lot more than optimism to make me think that life is necessarily moral or necessarily a gift.

 

Well, everyone who lives is going to suffer. One simply needs to gauge whether or not the net emotional well being (what I referred to as a happiness integral in another post) of any potential children is likely to be positive. My "happiness integral" is positive so far. I have good reason to believe that this will be true for my children as well, though I obviously can't know for sure.

[RankStranger]

The question about the subjectivity of morality is a good one. Yes, I agree. Morality is subjective, but I also believe we tend to base our morality on the concept of suffering. I would hope some of you agree with me on this, as I think I'm right in that it is a fairly pervasive view.

 

From the point of view of suffering, I still wonder if we can justify having children. Pockets, you are completely at a loss for understanding what I'm saying. I'm talking about reducing suffering, so obviously I don't want to kill myself or destroy the world. Both actions will just increase suffering in this world, either for my family in particular or for the family of others. What I'm concerned with is decreasing future suffering.

 

I mentioned when I started this post that I haven't made up my mind on this issue, and I'm very moved by those posters who suggest that perhaps being careful about when we have children and doing genetic screening and such would be commendable. Perhaps we could imagine a method by which we can reliably reduce human suffering, and likely we'll be able to use science to help support such a method, but still......

 

I don't know. It is going to take a lot more than optimism to make me think that life is necessarily moral or necessarily a gift.

 

 

I agree with the bolded to some extent. But there's got to be more to it than that- A LOT more.

 

The problem is that suffering is an inherent part of life. All us critters do it. Some buddhists say stuff along the lines of "life is suffering" (this is an invitation for Rev. R to elaborate). Some of us critters reckon that life is worth the suffering... mainly because we've got nothing better to do.

 

The way I look at it, we all have an off-switch. If the suffering were to become unbearable- suicide would be a quick and easy fix (and isn't a principled refusal to reproduce akin to suicide in a sense?). I see that as a personal choice- though suicide is a real shitty thing to do to your family & friends if that sort of thing concerns you (refusal to procreate isn't nearly as directly hurtful... though old people do pine for grandkids ).

 

But like I said, it's a personal choice. Seems like with this 'antinatalism' you're trying to suggest that your own nihilist outlook should fit into some larger and more universal moral code that others ought to follow. I'm not convinced.

[Vigile]

The question about the subjectivity of morality is a good one. Yes, I agree. Morality is subjective, but I also believe we tend to base our morality on the concept of suffering. I would hope some of you agree with me on this, as I think I'm right in that it is a fairly pervasive view.

 

Suffering, yes, to a degree. Wouldn't you agree that suffering must be balanced against more positive aspects of life though? I'm tired of saying this, but since so many insist on encouraging me, almost nothing is black and white. A utilitarian approach seems more reasonable. I'm stating the obvious, but pain is only one aspect of life. For whatever reason, you seem to elevate it at the expense of everything else life has to offer. Perhaps a few weeks on Patong Beach in Thailand where I'm at now will give you a fresh perspective and a more positive outlook.

 

What I'm concerned with is decreasing future suffering.

 

What's the point if no one is around to appreciate the fact?

 

I don't know. It is going to take a lot more than optimism to make me think that life is necessarily moral or necessarily a gift.

 

Life just is. It's what you make of it.

[RankStranger]

I don't know. It is going to take a lot more than optimism to make me think that life is necessarily moral or necessarily a gift.

 

"moral"??

 

I hope you realize that "moral" is an artificial, normative concept. It's a value judgement- highly flexible depending on your culture. That's kinda like asking whether or not the moon is 'moral'. It's a ridiculous question.

[Yrth]

The question about the subjectivity of morality is a good one. Yes, I agree. Morality is subjective, but I also believe we tend to base our morality on the concept of suffering. I would hope some of you agree with me on this, as I think I'm right in that it is a fairly pervasive view.

 

From the point of view of suffering, I still wonder if we can justify having children. Pockets, you are completely at a loss for understanding what I'm saying. I'm talking about reducing suffering, so obviously I don't want to kill myself or destroy the world. Both actions will just increase suffering in this world, either for my family in particular or for the family of others. What I'm concerned with is decreasing future suffering.

 

I mentioned when I started this post that I haven't made up my mind on this issue, and I'm very moved by those posters who suggest that perhaps being careful about when we have children and doing genetic screening and such would be commendable. Perhaps we could imagine a method by which we can reliably reduce human suffering, and likely we'll be able to use science to help support such a method, but still......

 

I don't know. It is going to take a lot more than optimism to make me think that life is necessarily moral or necessarily a gift.

If you kill yourself, you will prevent your future suffering, the future suffering of your descendants, and the future sufffering you and your descendants would have caused. That's a huge reduction conceptually despite the fact that its impossible to quantify suffering in the first place (unless you're a lawyer). Destroying the world would accomplish the same only on a larger scale.

 

Morality is not completely reasoned from "suffering," which is also impossible to qualify with specificity. There are a variety of rationale available and you have chosen a form of utilitarianism. This is quite new, historically speaking, and "suffers" from some fundamental defects, 2 of which I've already mentioned: you cannot quantify or qualify suffering. At any rate, this mode focuses on the final result. Other rationales evaluate the morality of a particular action (SEE western legal systems), and still other rationales evaluate the characteristics of a particular actor (SEE Aristotle). By no means is suffering the final arbiter of anything in this context.