Vomit Comet Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 My brother the bio-chemist mentioned to me that the earth would be just fine and dandy if the human population were at 1 billion and stayed there. Also, a child born in the USA will consume about 50 times more resources over its lifetime than a child born in the developing world. Which is why I'd have qualms about having more than two kids max. What scares me is that the hardcore religious are cranking out more kids than anyone else. Israel is going to get nastier than they are now because the Orthodox Jews are only going to get more numerous with every generation. They'll go from being an isolated, kooky minority to a huge electoral bloc. Imagine the Fundamentalist Mormons becoming 30% of the population of Arizona. Uh-oh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I don't see in the basis of morality or immorality but on the practicality of the matter. I'm a poor college student so having a child would be impracticle for both myself and the child. I do fall in the the Malthusian/Zero-Population Gowth camp, but it has nothing to do with morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeGaul Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 Pockets, you just aren't following what I'm trying to discuss (and I find you personally annoying, but that is a different matter entirely). No, I am not a Utilitarian because I don't accept the idea that suffering can be quantified. In fact, it is BECAUSE you can't quantify suffering that I think there maybe a problem with the morality of reproduction. Given that there is no equation I can use to determine if life will ever provide enough joy to counteract the inevitable suffering of a child (and given the fact that I doubt the coherence of the very idea of such an equation), I have to ask myself whether bringing a child into this world really is a morally neutral action. Now, granted, from a purely natural point of view it is a neutral action. I agree that life is just the reproduction of life, aimless, pointless, and amoral. But what I think is being missed by many is the fact that humanity is unique in its capacity to be conscious of this process. We alone, out of the endless and meaningless turns of genetic replication, have come to be capable of considering whether the whole thing has any value at all. We are nothings, but we KNOW that we are nothings. That is a powerful realization. Now, in response to the continuing childish recommendation that I kill myself, if you have understood me you should see that killing myself has no bearing on the question that I am interested in. As I don't believe in a calculus of suffering, I'm not interested in ending my own or anyone else's for that matter. I am interested in the question of whether bringing new life into the world is problematic on the basis of purely human moral sensibilities. I'm interested in asking about the absolute value of suffering, not a relative calculus of suffering. And I find the whole thing fascinating because for once in the history of evolution on this planet, a species exists which is capable of asking and attempting to formulate an answer to the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Pockets, you just aren't following what I'm trying to discuss (and I find you personally annoying, but that is a different matter entirely). No, I am not a Utilitarian because I don't accept the idea that suffering can be quantified. In fact, it is BECAUSE you can't quantify suffering that I think there maybe a problem with the morality of reproduction. Given that there is no equation I can use to determine if life will ever provide enough joy to counteract the inevitable suffering of a child (and given the fact that I doubt the coherence of the very idea of such an equation), I have to ask myself whether bringing a child into this world really is a morally neutral action. Now, granted, from a purely natural point of view it is a neutral action. I agree that life is just the reproduction of life, aimless, pointless, and amoral. But what I think is being missed by many is the fact that humanity is unique in its capacity to be conscious of this process. We alone, out of the endless and meaningless turns of genetic replication, have come to be capable of considering whether the whole thing has any value at all. We are nothings, but we KNOW that we are nothings. That is a powerful realization. Now, in response to the continuing childish recommendation that I kill myself, if you have understood me you should see that killing myself has no bearing on the question that I am interested in. As I don't believe in a calculus of suffering, I'm not interested in ending my own or anyone else's for that matter. I am interested in the question of whether bringing new life into the world is problematic on the basis of purely human moral sensibilities. I'm interested in asking about the absolute value of suffering, not a relative calculus of suffering. And I find the whole thing fascinating because for once in the history of evolution on this planet, a species exists which is capable of asking and attempting to formulate an answer to the question. Why not a calculus of suffering/wellbeing, with well being being above the x axis and suffering being below it. Of course, these can't be really quantified, but one can make a fairly decent assessment of whether or not one's well being outweighs one's suffering. Also, it might be good for illustrating ideas. For instance, when someone smokes crack, one can imagine having a momentarily y value of imaginary happy units that is as high as a person can have, but still having a negative happiness integral due to the related fall out from drug usage. Perhaps the closest thing to a good answer for you is if in doubt, don't. I have a feeling that no one will give you an answer that will satisfy you for this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Pockets, you just aren't following what I'm trying to discuss Really? Then please clarify your points. (and I find you personally annoying, but that is a different matter entirely). Oh I feel similarly toward you, don't worry. No, I am not a Utilitarian because I don't accept the idea that suffering can be quantified. In fact, it is BECAUSE you can't quantify suffering that I think there maybe a problem with the morality of reproduction. Given that there is no equation I can use to determine if life will ever provide enough joy to counteract the inevitable suffering of a child (and given the fact that I doubt the coherence of the very idea of such an equation), I have to ask myself whether bringing a child into this world really is a morally neutral action. This is incoherent. You say you're not a utilitarian but you're still framing the issue into comparing values of suffering and joy. You acknowledge that finding those values is impossible and move on from there, but you are at root using a utilitarian outlook. Now, granted, from a purely natural point of view it is a neutral action. I agree that life is just the reproduction of life, aimless, pointless, and amoral. But what I think is being missed by many is the fact that humanity is unique in its capacity to be conscious of this process. We alone, out of the endless and meaningless turns of genetic replication, have come to be capable of considering whether the whole thing has any value at all. We are nothings, but we KNOW that we are nothings. But hopefully not know-nothings...? Now, in response to the continuing childish recommendation that I kill myself, if you have understood me you should see that killing myself has no bearing on the question that I am interested in. As I don't believe in a calculus of suffering, I'm not interested in ending my own or anyone else's for that matter. I am interested in the question of whether bringing new life into the world is problematic on the basis of purely human moral sensibilities. I'm interested in asking about the absolute value of suffering, not a relative calculus of suffering. And I find the whole thing fascinating because for once in the history of evolution on this planet, a species exists which is capable of asking and attempting to formulate an answer to the question. Backtracking already? Let me quote you: I'm talking about reducing suffering [...] What I'm concerned with is decreasing future suffering. Providing an exception for people already alive doesn't square with this at all. Smells downright suspicious. But all right, have it your way. Which is... what? Essentially, what you're doing now is passing judgment on whether or not life is worth living in lieu of suffering. That about right? Well, take a look around, bro. Even people who are really living the shit life think its worth living. Good luck with that philosophy. Doesn't sound like it would last more than a generation or so. Hey -- its too bad you can't get the kid's consent to life before he's born, eh? LOL Tell you what, why don't you choose between your arguments. A. Bringing kids into the world may be wrong because of all the future suffering they will inevitably experience will not be 'counteracted' by joy B. Bringing kids into the world may be wrong because the very aspect suffering trumps the prospect of living [because I think suffering sucks]. C. [Write in your own choice here] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Why not a calculus of suffering/wellbeing, with well being being above the x axis and suffering being below it. Of course, these can't be really quantified, but one can make a fairly decent assessment of whether or not one's well being outweighs one's suffering. Also, it might be good for illustrating ideas. For instance, when someone smokes crack, one can imagine having a momentarily y value of imaginary happy units that is as high as a person can have, but still having a negative happiness integral due to the related fall out from drug usage. Perhaps the closest thing to a good answer for you is if in doubt, don't. I have a feeling that no one will give you an answer that will satisfy you for this issue. Not that I necessarily agree with it but see Felicific Calculus by Jeremy Bentham who's greatest ambition was to create Pannomion or code of law. Later refined by John Stuart Mill it's a pretty interesting vein of thought I figured you might be interested in. I see it not as being framed moral/unmoral but practical/impractical as pointed out by Opheila...is it practical for a family to have 17 children? I would argue no, not just for the mental/emotional development of the children but from a broader view of the Earth, resources etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I'm curious if anyone will be willing to have a rational discussion about this.... There goes that "I'm right and "rational" and most of the rest of you aren't". Not the best way to make friends and influence people.. but I digress. I don't think it is a question of morality or immorality. It really isn't. You cannot predict the happiness/sadness your child will develop. I refuse to believe that life is only one unrelenting tragedy. At the same time, I question the motives of people who do have over four children in the modern world. Yes, I really do wonder why they do it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Why not a calculus of suffering/wellbeing, with well being being above the x axis and suffering being below it. Of course, these can't be really quantified, but one can make a fairly decent assessment of whether or not one's well being outweighs one's suffering. Also, it might be good for illustrating ideas. For instance, when someone smokes crack, one can imagine having a momentarily y value of imaginary happy units that is as high as a person can have, but still having a negative happiness integral due to the related fall out from drug usage. Perhaps the closest thing to a good answer for you is if in doubt, don't. I have a feeling that no one will give you an answer that will satisfy you for this issue. Not that I necessarily agree with it but see Felicific Calculus by Jeremy Bentham who's greatest ambition was to create Pannomion or code of law. Later refined by John Stuart Mill it's a pretty interesting vein of thought I figured you might be interested in. I see it not as being framed moral/unmoral but practical/impractical as pointed out by Opheila...is it practical for a family to have 17 children? I would argue no, not just for the mental/emotional development of the children but from a broader view of the Earth, resources etc... Thanks, I'll check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeGaul Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Pockets, you almost got what I was saying. No, I wasn't back tracking. Talking about future suffering is not assigning a discreet value or calculus to suffering, as the Utilitarians do. Yes, I am questioning whether life is worth it at all, given that it seems to be fundamentally constituted by randomness and suffering, but only accidentally joyful. I am not so arrogant as to think that my suggesting that life may just be a carnival of horrors is something that is going to catch on. Hardly. The history of pessimism is not a history of mainstream acceptance. To those of you who are interested in a calculus of happiness, you certainly have a ton of great works to draw upon in the history of philosophy. Brother Josh's recommendation of Bentham was very well suggested, and I would also suggest looking into the Pragmatists as an extension of the Utilitarians. When I was doing my graduate work in philosophy, I was very taken with William James in particular. Although I actually agree with Pockets' criticism of Utilitarianism (a criticism that can be developed against the Pragmatists as well), it does not change that the Utilitarians were some very clever philosophers, and probably the strongest argument in favor of life despite suffering can be made by them. (At least in my opinion.) MagickMonkey, you are probably right. I'm not going to get a definite answer off this forum, but then I wouldn't expect to get a definite answer. I mean, having children is a very personal affair, and I'm not going to decide whether I do or don't based on a forum discussion. But I did want a discussion, and I thank you for discussing. Hell, I even thank Pockets for discussing, even if I don't find his personality very appealing to myself. I don't need him or anyone else to appeal to my sensibilities, I only need people to argue so that I can come to understand things more clearly. And I really do feel that I understand a bit more clearly. I started this discussion with a vague sense that maybe having a child is morally questionable, and now I think I see that the issue I have is a much broader one. I'm more interested in the question as to whether life itself can be coherently questioned from a certain moral standpoint.....and I think it can. I don't know the answer to the question, of course, but it seems at least coherent to ask ourselves, is life itself worth continuing, on the species level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 lol. Not everything is about abortion. LOL, that's curious, where did I mention abortion? Or are you just itching to pick a fight over the old subject? 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. I should point out I didn't read the previous posts when I posted my answer, just the OP. So sorry if your feathers got ruffled, but I stand by my opinion. The Earth in general has finite and limited resources, I hope even someone like you can realize that. Dwindling resources doesn't make your life more or less valuable. People who fail to realize this are deluded idiots im"H"o. That's a pretty weak attempt at an argument - you're just trying to put words in my mouth. Try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeGaul Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Ha. In fact, on further consideration I think I've probably gained the most by arguing with Pockets. Ha. We don't agree at all, and I find your method of "shock" arguing annoying, but I think I do actually like you in a sense. You aren't weak willed. And you aren't afraid to say things that will piss someone off if you really believe them. Haha. Well met sir, well met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 ow, in response to the continuing childish recommendation that I kill myself, if you have understood me you should see that killing myself has no bearing on the question that I am interested in. As I don't believe in a calculus of suffering, I'm not interested in ending my own or anyone else's for that matter. I am interested in the question of whether bringing new life into the world is problematic on the basis of purely human moral sensibilities. I'm interested in asking about the absolute value of suffering, not a relative calculus of suffering. And I find the whole thing fascinating because for once in the history of evolution on this planet, a species exists which is capable of asking and attempting to formulate an answer to the question. You say suffering cannot be quantified, and I agree, but I truly don't understand why you think it can't be balanced against. This is just an assertion on your part that I do not believe is reflected in reality. For example, since this is a thread regarding reproduction, ask virtually any mother if the suffering she undergoes during childbirth is worth it and virtually every single time she will give an emphatic yes. Moreover, the point about suicide you didn't like is indeed apt here. If human beings as a whole believed that the suffering they endure simply living on this planet is not counterbalanced by the joys they experience in life, the only logical conclusion they could reach is that suicide is the answer, but almost none come to this conclusion (in the US it's roughly 10 people out of every 100,000). You appear to be arguing that suffering exists. Suffering cannot be quantified. If I bring a child into the world, it will suffer. Therefore it's morally wrong to bring a child into the world. I'd argue this is a non sequitur because it is a conclusion made at the expense of many other possible conclusions. I could just as easily exchange the word suffering with joy and reach an entirely different conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 LOL, that's curious, where did I mention abortion? Or are you just itching to pick a fight over the old subject? lulz. It was obvious. You didn't have to mention it. I should point out I didn't read the previous posts when I posted my answer, just the OP. So sorry if your feathers got ruffled. The Earth in general has finite and limited resources, I hope even someone like you can realize that. Aw, that's sweet. No need to worry, though, feathers thoroughly unruffled. ;] Btw, how's your reading comprehension? Did you catch the part where I acknowledged that the planet has dwindling resources? Apparently not... Dwindling resources doesn't make your life more or less valuable. People who fail to realize this are deluded idiots im"H"o. That's a pretty weak attempt at an argument - you're just trying to put words in my mouth. Try again derp derp a'derp. I'd rather not go anywhere near your mouth, so why don't you just expressly say what you mean regarding how overpopulation relates to whether having kids is moral or immoral? Always feel free to not respond, of course. I don't mind either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeGaul Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Vigile, you couldn't actually substitute joy for suffering in your characterization of my argument because joy is not guaranteed in life, only suffering is. When I was serving as a military police officer, I had to pull suicide watch on a guy who was in prison for raping his 6 month old boy to death and then throwing his body in the bushes. I often wonder, did that 6 month old ever really experience joy, or was his life just pure suffering. I've often thought about that crime and that victim. It has always stood out in my mind. I think I can wholeheartedly say that that child would have been better off never having been. And before Pockets does his duty and tries to point out that it sounds like I'm slipping toward Utilitarianism again, I admit that I'm passing judgment on the situation, and my judgment in this case is largely one born from my gut and my feelings, but I still think it stands to support my assertion that only suffering is guaranteed in this life, not joy. As far as your desire to push the whole suicide thing, no, suicide does not follow from my point of view. If you ask me why I don't want to commit suicide, I'll tell you that I just don't want to. I have no desire to die. There is no contradiction between me saying that life is fundamentally suffering and saying that despite that I want to keep living. After all, as accidental as joy maybe, I'm here so I might as well try to get as much of it as I can. What troubles me is the thought that future generations receive no guarantees and have no choice in being born. Nature just sort of shits them out and turns Her back on them. And true, they have just as much chance as I do to struggle for some kind of happiness, but happiness is really just a consolation in this case. A striving for joy DESPITE the suffering. If a child had never been born, he would just be an imaginary thing....a real non-existent, so you could not say he was missing out on life. A non-entity can't miss out on anything. But, by not being born, we know there will be one less entity to suffer. So, take that for what it's worth. That should give a little more depth to my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Vigile, you couldn't actually substitute joy for suffering in your characterization of my argument because joy is not guaranteed in life, Perhaps not, but I'm a probabilities guy and most will probably experience joy unless they happen to have a short life being born into a war zone in sub saharan Africa. I had to pull suicide watch on a guy who was in prison for raping his 6 month old boy to death and then throwing his body in the bushes. A terrible thing, but I'd be hesitant to establish a rule based on a limited experience. Most people do not do things like this. What troubles me is the thought that future generations receive no guarantees and have no choice in being born. You disagree with the suicide point, but how many times do you believe most people wish they had never been born? I can think of one or two times in my life where I felt that way when I was really down. Future generations will at least be provided with the possibility of deciding this question for themselves. I'm personally happy my parents gave me the opportunity to decide this question for myself and that they didn't make it for me. Of course, had they not, I wouldn't care as I wouldn't exist, but since they have, I can reflect on it and appreciate it. a real non-existent, so you could not say he was missing out on life. No disagreement here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeGaul Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Vigile, I get the spirit of what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Saying that future generation get a choice just isn't so. No one gets a choice as to whether or not they are born, and once born, no one escapes suffering. Even if one wanted to commit suicide, that in itself would be a likely terrible experience that one would have to suffer through just to find rest. But, on the other hand, no one misses out if they aren't born. I may be making the best of life right now, but if I had never been born I wouldn't be missing out on anything. I think too that you will find my example is only one personal example of a million examples throughout the world of harm being done to human beings on a daily basis. Once again, I'm not saying that we definitely shouldn't continue the species, rather I'm saying that it shouldn't be something we just take for granted, as if continuing the species is just inherently a good thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 What is good? What is moral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeGaul Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Ouroboros, I already kind of addressed this. There is no morality, strictly scientifically speaking. DNA just seeks to reproduce, that's all. Morality likely evolved in order to help the human race survive and reproduce, but now we are something more than just reproductive animals, we are conscious reproductive animals, able to ask the question as to whether life itself is worth living. I've already weighed in with my two cents. This life is a carnival of horrors, we deal as best we can, and then we die. I'm just curious what others think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Ouroboros, I already kind of addressed this. There is no morality, strictly scientifically speaking. DNA just seeks to reproduce, that's all. Morality likely evolved in order to help the human race survive and reproduce, but now we are something more than just reproductive animals, we are conscious reproductive animals, able to ask the question as to whether life itself is worth living. I've already weighed in with my two cents. This life is a carnival of horrors, we deal as best we can, and then we die. I'm just curious what others think. I can honestly say that the happiness in my life far exceeds the suffering I've experienced. I know I'm not unique in that regard. EDIT: Almost forgot a very important word. hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Vigile, I get the spirit of what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Saying that future generation get a choice just isn't so. No one gets a choice as to whether or not they are born, and once born, no one escapes suffering. I don't dispute this, but what I'm saying is this is your perspective. You are elevating suffering at the expense of everything else life has to offer. Personally, like many, I've suffered a lot in my life. I've lost loved ones, I've got kidney problems, I've had financial difficulties in the past, etc..., etc... I'm still glad to be alive despite all these things. I still don't think my parents would be immoral to make a conscious decision to have me even if they had weighed the questions you are weighing now. It's all a matter of subjective opinion, not a forgone logical conclusion. But, on the other hand, no one misses out if they aren't born. Very true, but it wouldn't matter if you can't reflect on it in much the same way your life won't matter once you are dead as you can't reflect on it. Morality is for the living and it is essentially the lube that makes society work. Without morality, there could be no society other people would make your life intolerable. Anyway, once again, you have a right to your own opinion on this. I have no problem with it. I think too that you will find my example is only one personal example of a million examples throughout the world of harm being done to human beings on a daily basis. I've spent the past 12-13 years living in several different countries and traveling around the world. My observation is that most people are for the most part pretty happy. Terrible things happen and so do great things. I see no reason why one should be elevated above another or why inevitability should be a decisive factor. That's my opinion. I'm saying that it shouldn't be something we just take for granted, as if continuing the species is just inherently a good thing to do. Ok, that's cool. I don't have kids, in large part because I'm a bit selfish and like my freedom. There are times, especially over the past few years I've entertained the idea; primarily because I really adore my nieces and nephews. It's a little late for my wife and I though unless we adopt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeGaul Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Vigile, fair enough. You are correct in saying that we just have a difference of perspective. There isn't much else that can be said about it at this point. I guess the only thing that I would still insist on is that no matter how you may feel about it, and no matter how anyone else may feel about it, being born is inevitably harmful for every living creature that is born. If you don't find that compelling or interesting (and many people don't) for all that it doesn't make it less true. It seems to me that the truth of life is still that harm and suffering are essential, although it seems that most people are willing to accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 being born is inevitably harmful for every living creature that is born. If you don't find that compelling or interesting (and many people don't) for all that it doesn't make it less true. It seems to me that the truth of life is still that harm and suffering are essential, although it seems that most people are willing to accept that. Only if you see death, which is inevitable, as harmful might your statement be true. But I said "might" your statement be true. It is not inevitable that every living creature will come to harm between birth and death (or the sequence of events which leads to death). Many people live long healthy lives with very few mishaps in their lives. And from a human perspective, many people who have what they view as good lives do not view their deaths as a harm, but rather a condition of life which, at the end of their otherwise fulfilled lives, they accept without regret. So, I think that at least some people's experiences prove that your statement is overly broad. I think to come closer to being correct, you must narrow it substantially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I would still insist on is that no matter how you may feel about it, and no matter how anyone else may feel about it, being born is inevitably harmful for every living creature that is born. I wish I could stipulate to that so we can move on cleanly, but I can't. I believe it depends on how you define harm. But anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Ouroboros, I already kind of addressed this. There is no morality, strictly scientifically speaking. DNA just seeks to reproduce, that's all. Morality likely evolved in order to help the human race survive and reproduce, but now we are something more than just reproductive animals, we are conscious reproductive animals, able to ask the question as to whether life itself is worth living. I've already weighed in with my two cents. This life is a carnival of horrors, we deal as best we can, and then we die. I'm just curious what others think. I missed your earlier discussion about it, and I wanted to discuss it with you directly. If moral doesn't really exist, then the question "Is it morally questionable to have children?" is based on something that doesn't exist. If moral only exists in the sphere of human thought, then stopping reproduction will stop even the small existence of morality. So the question would in essence be moot if we concluded it was immoral to have children and stop reproducing. Right? Life isn't only pain and suffering, and for some, the happiness they have outweighs the pain and suffering they have. Do we know which kid will have more happiness than pain? So can we really make a moral decision before we even know what the outcome is? More so, can we ask the same question about other animals? Is it moral to let chimpanzees reproduce? Or does morality not apply to them? If not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 and no matter how anyone else may feel about it, being born is inevitably harmful for every living creature that is born. Is that a fact or just your opinion? I can't say that there are indisputable evidence that every child in the world, at all times, will always be harmed. I'd say it's only an opinion, perhaps inferred from your own experience, and a very dismal opinion at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts