Vulijigo Posted April 27, 2014 Posted April 27, 2014 "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!
Erik_T Posted April 27, 2014 Posted April 27, 2014 Interesting question. Wow... Let's attempt to use UPB (although, for this situation, it may be difficult). I wonder, if creating a life is not directly going against another sentient being's wishes (unless in cases of rape, of course), because the child is not yet alive to object to its being conceived and born, then it cannot conflict with the nonaggression principle. Of course, deciding to bring another life into this world is also a decision to bring death upon someone, since all people who are born must eventually die. Then again, had you and your partner not decided to conceive, then that unique consciousness belonging to the child would never have existed in the first place. Since all is nonexistence until created, and since we all return to nonexistence eventually, we are given only a small window to experience the strange and wonderful and painful and exhilarating state of existence, before we return to where we all come from, where virtually countless lives (theoretically) never escape in the first place. Well, I didn't address the UPB implications of this question. Perhaps someone else can take a stab at it.
dsayers Posted April 27, 2014 Posted April 27, 2014 A child's personality isn't fulled formed until they're 4-5 years old. When a child becomes a moral actor is almost impossible to define, but it is definitely years after they are born. I'm more interested in how you let such a claim by some guy you know escape this level of scrutiny or be repeated. Clearly he does not wish he was never born if he says so while not actively trying to end his life.
tiepolo Posted April 27, 2014 Posted April 27, 2014 You have to be alive and sentient to be moral. If no one had children then there would be no conscious morality. Hence it would seem the case that having children is a moral, since without children morality itself will be no more. There is also no preference in a state of non-existence or extinction, so the promotion of UPB also depends on keeping the species going!
tasmlab Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 I guess you could phrase it that "you are aggressing against the child by bringing it into the cruel world" But then you are also giving it life (vs. death/non-existence) which is a pretty cool thing!
jpahmad Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 I would say that you can't aggress against something that doesn't exist. One a child is conceived, however, it is possible to aggress against it, e.g., drinking, smoking, being under stress from an abusive relationship while pregnant, living in a depraved war-torn environment, etc... Once a child is conceived, if your current disposition is abusive, if your current environment is poison, then you by default become an aggressor against the unborn child. Let's say I conceived a child on the ledge of an active volcano. The act of sex was not aggresive, but untill I change my immediate environment, I am aggressing against the child/fetus.
Vulijigo Posted April 28, 2014 Author Posted April 28, 2014 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?
jpahmad Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 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? Yes, you ever watch that show Walking Dead?
dsayers Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 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? I don't know if that question can be answered. Maybe you could help by sharing where this is going or what exactly it is that you're fishing for.
tasmlab Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Does the premise of this discussion assume that the world is a shitty place, everywhere? If the opposite is true, than would it be virtuous to bring in as many folks as possible? If I were to ask my children, who all are closer to being born than me, they would think that it was pretty good that they were born. With my own experience, I'd say the same thing.
Vulijigo Posted April 29, 2014 Author Posted April 29, 2014 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?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 "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! You have to prove the reason this guy you know wishes he'd never been born is necessarily because he has disabilities. Maybe it WAS wrong for his parents to bring him into existence but not necessarily for the reasons given. I have seen no evidence that disabled people generally feel more regret for being born than non-disabled so I highly doubt the reason for his depression is him coming onto existence and/or having disabilities. Coming into existence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for such regret so no, it's not immoral to bring a child into the world. Note that you shifted from a specific case to a universal. You started with this one guy and by the end you were asking a question about everyone. The question about whether it's moral to bring a child into an immoral system like the current debt slavery is interesting and one I've thought about myself but it's a different question from your opening one. 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? When Stef talks about the unborn he's referring to those who WILL come into existence.
Vulijigo Posted April 29, 2014 Author Posted April 29, 2014 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)?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 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)? How do you know you can't prove it? Can you prove their non-existence is preferable? How much actual thought have you put into it? What standards would have to be met for birth to be justified? Is it moral for you to put forward this argument half-cocked when it could lead to someone's non-existence? Why is your conclusion that bringing children into existence the most immoral choice? What's your argument for that conclusion? What gives you the right to ask what gives someone else the right to have a child? Why do they need to prove the right anymore than they have to prove any other right? What gives YOU the right to continue existing? What gives YOU the right to risk causing the non-existence of someone who would have otherwise existed? Do you think pre-murder is moral? How do we know this isn't just your depression being projected onto others?
Vulijigo Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 How do you know you can't prove it? Can you prove their non-existence is preferable? How much actual thought have you put into it? What standards would have to be met for birth to be justified? Is it moral for you to put forward this argument half-cocked when it could lead to someone's non-existence? Why is your conclusion that bringing children into existence the most immoral choice? What's your argument for that conclusion? What gives you the right to ask what gives someone else the right to have a child? Why do they need to prove the right anymore than they have to prove any other right? What gives YOU the right to continue existing? What gives YOU the right to risk causing the non-existence of someone who would have otherwise existed? Do you think pre-murder is moral? How do we know this isn't just your depression being projected onto others?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 How do you know you can't prove it? Can you prove their non-existence is preferable? How much actual thought have you put into it? What standards would have to be met for birth to be justified? Is it moral for you to put forward this argument half-cocked when it could lead to someone's non-existence? Why is your conclusion that bringing children into existence the most immoral choice? What's your argument for that conclusion? What gives you the right to ask what gives someone else the right to have a child? Why do they need to prove the right anymore than they have to prove any other right? What gives YOU the right to continue existing? What gives YOU the right to risk causing the non-existence of someone who would have otherwise existed? Do you think pre-murder is moral? How do we know this isn't just your depression being projected onto others? Are you okay?
Vulijigo Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 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.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 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 call antinatalist troll.
Vulijigo Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 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!
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 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! It's important to me too and I don't appreciate being responded to with nonsense. When I call troll it's because I actually mean it. It's not an ad hominem. If you say the things you're saying and fail to respond to the arguments being made to you then it appears you are trying to get a rise out of people. Now you are claiming that I'm being unkind and I'm attacking you. No I'm being totally fair. If you are going to accuse someone of "ad hominems" and claim victim-hood then prove it. I gave you an argument and you responded with a blank message. Then you responded with "exactly!" as if to say that what I had written somehow proved and /or illustrated your point. If you're going to make this incredibly serious moral argument then you need to be serious and rigorous.
Vulijigo Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 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.
Vulijigo Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 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.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 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. I asked how you know you can't prove it and if you could prove their non-existence is preferable, not how it "was possible" for you to know if not having kids was moral. No you can't be 100% sure of the future your child will grow up in or that they will be satisfied with life. So what? 100 percent certainty in this context is an irrational standard that is impossible to apply consistently. You use the term "forced to make choices" instead of "given the power of choice" or "granted agency" or something neutral. So anyone arguing with you will appear to be arguing for force. I reject that because you have not argued that granting choice is an act of force. You can't smuggle that in. So it's not immoral on those grounds. You need to make a moral argument. A moral argument demonstrates the criteria for something being immoral and then demonstrates the act/behavior fits that criteria. So far you've just stated you view that having a child is immoral because you can't have 100 percent certainty. Your analogy with cutting the strangers hair is wrong. There's a overwhelmingly reasonable expectation that the cutting of the hair is unwanted. There is no such expectation that a child will not want life; just the opposite. If you parent peacefully then it's a virtual certainty the child will not view life as having a negative value. Such a view requires something go wrong AFTER being born. As I said in my first post, being born is a necessary condition for regretting or hating life but not a sufficient one.
Vulijigo Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 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.
dsayers Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I don't know if that question can be answered. Maybe you could help by sharing where this is going or what exactly it is that you're fishing for.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 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. No there's an overwhelmingly reasonable expectation that the hair-cutting is not wanted. This is not so with birth. If you would prefer not to have existed then you cannot be happy. A logical prerequisite for happiness in life is that one at least find it preferable to non-existence or never-existence. You do not find it preferable, therefore it is not logically possible that you are happy. Yes if life were hell then it would be immoral. Of course. So what? It's not like the options are ALL birth is immoral or ALL birth is moral. You don't have to make your best guess. Humans are designed to exist and certain standards can be set that make it certain any child will prefer existence.
tasmlab Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 If someone doesn't like to exist, then they can exit anytime. This minority can cancel out what they viewed as an immoral action of being forced to be born.
Vulijigo Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 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.
tiepolo Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 If morality is universally preferable behaviour, then is it immoral not to have children? If no-one had children then the human species would become extinct, and with it would perish the only creatures with the intelligence to understand, formulate and enact morality. Support for morality would seem to entail a desire to keep morality in existence, and since universality is explicit in UPB, would that not suggest that having children is a moral duty?
Vulijigo Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 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?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 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? As you have not addressed the arguments I made to you I would ask if you have an argument? Asking "who are we to make this grand decision?" is not an argument. It's rhetoric. It's an attempt to shame. There's no way to refute it. This is a philosophy forum. You make arguments. You claim all procreation is immoral. What is your argument for that?
Vulijigo Posted May 1, 2014 Author Posted May 1, 2014 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.
jpahmad Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 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. if we substitute "non-existing" for the "unborn", and "existing" for "individuals", then we get the sentence: "The existing cannot make subjective decisions for the non existing." But we should take out the word "subjective" because all decisions made by individuals are subjective. An individual cannot make an "objective decision." So now we have the sentence: "The existing cannot make decisions for the non-existing." Now this makes total sense. But, it has no moral component. At least none that I can see.
Vulijigo Posted May 1, 2014 Author Posted May 1, 2014 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?
Recommended Posts