Jagsfan82 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 I wrote this big long thing and then realized I think the whole explanation was entirely unnecessary. First obviously we can't say that it is immoral to bring life into this world, because then the entire race would become extinct. The only argument against that is that it is impossible to live a happy life and any life brought into this world would be subject to misery.The problem here is happiness is very much a choice. There are no reasonable circumstances that a human could dealt with from birth that would lead to a certainly unhappy life except very very rare medical exceptions that would require that person to live in constant pain. I don't even know of any examples, but they must exist. You and your friend both seem to look at things outside of your control and let them determine whether or not you are happy instead of creating your own happiness with things you can control. I have terrible vocabulary and I am not a very good writer, so this won't be very eloquent, but happiness comes from within. Happiness comes from having compassion and empathy towards others and finding fellow human companions that share that same compassion and ability to love. Happiness comes from being confident in yourself and your actions as being moral and just. Happiness comes from knowing deep down you are a good person who puts forth the effort to do the right things not just for yourself but for your fellow companions. Unhappiness comes from focusing on all the bad things in your life without realizing the positives. Unhappiness comes from a negative outlook on the future and not trusting in your own ability to make it better. Unhappy people generally don't believe in themselves or their actions and don't feel they DESERVE to be happy.That is not to say that someone being tortured in a basement for years should still be happy. Certainly there are exceptions where people absolutely do not have control over their own situation, but that is an exception and a rarity.It is not immoral to bring a child into the world because they have the chance at being unhappy. It is not immoral to bring a child into this world because they are going to face challenges and difficulties. It is immoral to subject that child to abuse after they enter the world, and it would be immoral to bring a child into the world knowing they are going to receive that abuse with no way to then reconcile that abuse. But challenges, difficulties, disabilities, and non-binding public debt? No. Those things can be dealt with. Strong, confident, happy adults come out of those situations all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 1, 2014 Share 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. That's not an argument. That's a series of conclusions. That's three sentences telling us what you believe. I'm sorry if you think someone politely asking you for an argument after politely pointing out you don't have one is "unkind". You could have shown me how I was wrong and presented your argument but instead you've claimed I'm being "harsh". I'm believe you are being hyper-sensitive to criticism. I'm frustrated with you, not your argument and I HAVE called out other people for this very thing on other threads. I have also argued against the position you hold extensively outside of FDR and probably have more experience with it than everyone here combined so It's got nothing to do with me not liking the "argument". Not everything you write must be an argument but this is a philosophy forum so at some point you must make a valid argument for the conclusions you're making; otherwise you're just browbeating people and it will be difficult to know if you're trolling or not. When we argue against the state for example we don't just assert "the state is immoral because it has no right to use force" or "It doesn't matter how much benefit you get from the state, it's still immoral". Those are just conclusions. Do you understand how the "argument" you present above is just opinion? Please have some empathy for the people you're debating. You claim all procreation is immoral. What is your argument for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tasmlab Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 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. Whoa! Are you talking about your parents immoral decision to bring you in, or your decision to bring your three kids in? Who cares about passing judgement on your folks, you have yourself to contend with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWW Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 It's fundamentally a comparison between the quality or condition of non-existence and existence. If the quality of being in a state of non-existence is greater or preferable to the quality of being in a state of existence, then we would logically have to assume that having children would be an immoral practice. If the opposite is true then having children would be a moral practice. Since we can only speculate as to the quality of being in a state of non-existence there is no way of answering this question logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edinburger Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Suffering is unpreferable and all humans suffer (to some extent) therefore non-existence is preferable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiepolo Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 That would be a poor defence in a murder trial... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus FIN Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 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! Oh god, that just got heavy. I think that parents have the right to bring someone into the world because that is the only way humans can continue on living and things can be approved. I mean even if he is born to live a life of prison he can still LIVE. I think your friend should be thankful that he was born because otherwise he would have had no consciousness. However if he finds his life too hard to live then he has the choice to end it. I just really hope he doesn't. Personally I was very depressed for about 3 years and during that time any self-destructive thoughts never lead to any action. It was because I was scared of losing my contentiousness. Scared that if there is nothing after death and I simply disappear from existence. A total oblivion of everything is what I am most scared of, I live to think. I can't imagine a life without it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-William Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Is it immoral to have children? Just my experience of seeing your interaction with others in this thread; I feel an acute displeasure. Do you think it is immoral to cause displeasure in other people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edinburger Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 That would be a poor defence in a murder trial...The argument I made was that non-existence is preferable ( to me that SEEMS wrong but I logically can't disprove it and I have tried). But that doesn't mean it is justified to kill someone else in the same way it's not justified to force people to eat healthy food or avoid using harmful drugs. Also when I said non-existence I really meant pre-life rather than post-life because once you are in the world it's not easy to decide to leave.I have no problem with the comment you made and it was pretty funny but in the future at least follow it up with an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiepolo Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 If non existence were preferable, most people would kill themselves, doctors would be scorned and murderers held in high regard. It would be easy to decide to leave the world. That also suggests that suffering is not the predominate experience that life presents. I don't think you can have any preference for a pre-life state, as capacity to prefer assumes being alive and somewhat sentient. You need a living individual or a living society to have a preference for anything. As I say, morality also requires intelligent creatures to be around to be moral. The cause of preserving and advancing morality must be moral in and of itself. That makes having children a virtuous act and arguably a moral duty, especially for healthy, intelligent and moral people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 If non existence were preferable, most people would kill themselves[...] to say "oh, all the children you have can just kill themselves if they dont like it" is to make an argument after the life has already been created, and is also putting a positive obligation on the victim, which is missing the point of the question, as the original question is asking if it is immoral to have children to begin with. this is like if someone asked "is it immoral to pour paint on someone without their consent?" and you responded "if not being covered in paint was preferable, most people would wash it off!" -- again, missing the point.now obviously that paint example is immoral because it's breaching property rights and consent, so what is the difference when it comes to forcing life on a child? I don't think you can have any preference for a pre-life state, as capacity to prefer assumes being alive and somewhat sentient. to flip this example around: the parent is sentient and has the capacity to prefer. so what gives the parent the right to "prefer" what is best for another being, what gives that parent the right to force life upon another being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 to flip this example around: the parent is sentient and has the capacity to prefer. so what gives the parent the right to "prefer" what is best for another being, what gives that parent the right to force life upon another being? This question has been answered for you several times and the dishonest nature of the question has been pointed out. To ask "what gives that parent the right to force life upon another being" is to presuppose the life is "forced" onto someone. If it was "forced" onto someone then by definition (as it's not self-defense) it would be immoral. The question is prejudicial. That's a logical fallacy called begging the question. If you want to argue that procreation is coercive force then make the argument. Don't presuppose it is and then ask questions based on that presupposition. Stop fucking doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 To ask "what gives that parent the right to force life upon another being" is to presuppose the life is "forced" onto someone. If it was "forced" onto someone then by definition (as it's not self-defense) it would be immoral. The question is prejudicial. That's a logical fallacy called begging the question. okay,but it does seem rather presupposed to me as it fits the characteristics of "force" as generally recognized, in that a person is wilfully engaging in an action that effects another human being, without and unbeknownst of their consent. what are the distinctions that you are hinting towards that say this is not an act of "force"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 okay,but it does seem rather presupposed to me as it fits the characteristics of "force" as generally recognized, in that a person is wilfully engaging in an action that effects another human being, without and unbeknownst of their consent. what are the distinctions that you are hinting towards that say this is not an act of "force"? COERCION! The child not being coerced. Coercion necessarily involves that the thing be unwanted. There is no logical possibility of a child not wanting to be born, only an an adult not wanting to have been born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meta Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Well, I am thinking that the parents have to outweigh the potential happiness of an unborn child.There is definitely a responsibility of the parents until the child can express any will or choice. The foetus may have a trouble that will cancel that individual's potential to make any choice. who knows.I don't have kids, but if i learned during pregnancy that the foetus had big development problem, I would think about it.That is a good example of where I don't agree with NAP, because it is ending a life.I am not eugenist or anything, it is just that I don't know how I would react facing a particular case. I would probably would like to have a choice then feeling responsible for that potential happiness, if it makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts