Vulijigo

Thanks Jpamad. I wrote "subjective decision" for emphasis, but I know it's not correct. I was hoping no one would call me out on it, ha! Thanks for your input! Do you think it would be correct to say that we have jurisdiction (maybe a different word would be more appropriate) over the existing (children) but not over the non-existing?

I've stated my argument many times, but I'll do it again: individuals cannot morally make subjective decisions for the unborn. It doesn't matter how much the individual believes that the unborn will enjoy it. Neither does it matter if the individual believes that he's got to keep the human population thriving. Teabagger, it sounds to me that you're frustrated with my argument. I'm just guessing but it also sounds like you're claiming that I'm not making an argument because you personally don't like the argument. If you don't like it, don't respond. So far I've gained some good insight from others who have responded so far. I enjoy hearing what other have to say about it (including you. I think you have some good points). Instead of being so harsh, try saying something like, "Could you clarify your argument?" or "I don't see your argument." If your an unhappy person, don't spread it. If I accidentally break forum rules, go ahead and remind me, but have some compassion. I don't think that the forum requires that everything I write must be an argument. In fact I've seen plenty of non-arguments on various threads. I don't recall you calling them out. Anyway, I'm sure you're a great person, but be kind please.

What is preferable about existence? It's subjective to each individual. Does morality demand that we propagate life? If you lived during a time when life expectancy was extremely low and most babies didn't make it through birth, I would have a hard time saying that the unborn child has any kind of responsibility for someone else's actions. Who are we to make this grand decision?

The reason I don't exit is because I feel responsibility towards so many others. But honestly I have a wife and 3 kids with whom I practice total peace. I'm trying to make the best of what I've been given. I still don't see how my parents had any authority in determining my existence. Now, If life were less like a prison in my eyes, I may be glad to be alive. But, of course, that still doesn't make my parents' decision moral.

I could do my best to cut his hair to where I'm very confident that he would like it. But it doesn't matter how confident I am about the result, right? My parents assumed that I would be happy to be brought into existence. I am happy, but I prefer to not have existed. If this life were absolute hell for everyone, would it then be immoral to create life? Ultimately we can only make our best guess as to what the future child might prefer.

I should correct that last analogy. If I were to shave a stranger's head at night because I thought he might like it, it still wouldn't be moral whether he ended up liking it or not.

Don't be so quick to judge. The reposting of your post was an accident. Sorry about that. The reason that I said, "exactly" is because you were proving my point, right? You were asking how it was possible for me to know if not having kids was moral. My answer was that you were right. I don't know. It may be easier to look at it like this: If my wife and I were the first two people living on Earth, how can we ethically choose what the unborn child might desire once it's born and grows to adulthood. I can assume that my wife and I would have a long conversation and determine that we really didn't know what having a child would mean for the future. Would peace continue? Would wars erupt. Could we be assured that he/she would even be satisfied with life even if peace existed? Ultimately, in my thinking, it would be immoral to create a life where this new child were now forced to make choices in the first place. Even if it turns out that the child ends up being glad to to be alive, does that make it okay to have made this choice for him/her? In other words, if I were to shave my daughter's head during the night in order upset her, it would be considered an immoral act even if it turns out that she liked it.

No ad hominems please. This stuff is important to me. Don't reply if you don't like the argument or if you lack of one. I'm not trying to win the "non-crazy argument" award. The reason I found Stefan was because I was willing to ask crazy question and suggest crazy theories to myself. This was the one place I thought I could post without being attacked. However, everyone else has been very kind thus far!

Exactly! I have a very happy life with happy children, but I can't prove to them that their existence is preferable or not preferable. Even though my parents did a reasonably good job of raising me, I prefer to have never existed. Fortunately for me, I enjoy life. If I didn't I would really be disappointed.

I simply can't prove to my children that their existence is preferable to their non-existence. For me it might be, but of course it might not be to them (Even if I do practice UPB). My conclusion is that bringing these children into existence is the most immoral choice we can make. What gives us the right to create life (even if we have the power to do so)?

So then bringing a child into existence is morally subjective. Therefore, making this choice for the unborn is immoral, no? If a baby has no rights before conception, how is it immoral to set them up with debt before they exist?

So my follow up question would be: Could there occur any circumstance where earth life was so excrutiatingly terrible to live in that it WOULD be immoral to bring a child into existence?

He has tried.

"I was born with many disabilities and wish I'd never been born." -Guy I know What gave this guy's parents the right to choose to bring a child into this world? If it is immoral to create a debt prison for the unborn, how is it moral to bring a child into the prison in the first place? Thanks for all replies!

I like Fermi's Parodox.

Is there a "I'm an incomprehensibly complex anomaly theory" somewhere? Or "I'm an anomaly within an anomaly theory?"

Thanks so much for providing me with your points of view. It's such a great help for me!

Thanks for the detailed responses! I will definitely be looking into this in more depth. It's still hard for me, however, to wrap my mind around the fact that the phenomenon of the existence of a rational being exists in a seemingly infinite universe without any example of the same anywhere else. I can see why probability should be irrational in this case. Still, it pounds on my brain every day (I know that this is not rationally relevant). To me, It's like imagining that the first reasoning being was walking along the river and finds a smart phone. What conclusion does he make about such a thing? Would it be correct to assume that it was created by chance? Why is there no precedent for rational beings?

Thank you!

The the earth explodes, does morality cease to exist?

How do you answer this: If you were to suddenly to appear on earth without prior knowledge of anything and the first thing you see is a human next to a computer (and let's say that you miraculously have a high level of intelligence and reasoning skills). Which would you be more likely to say had an intelligent creator: The less complex computer or the more complex human? Is it reasonable to declare that a human being in all it's complexities exists by chance while entropy sits confused? Matter continues ever more disorganized. But what is this opposite force that has made me to become unimaginably organized? And with something we call a mind, no less. If you come across a written screenplay of Hamlet, do you assume that a team of monkeys have been strumming on typewriters for billions of years? Or do you say that Shakespeare must have passed by? And then of course, how did I hit the jackpot a million times and end up here. In my mind, there is no logical explanation for my existence. Yet, here I am. Paradox, no?