The rational behind having children and pets.

[Tweak]

Hello fellow anarchists!

 

I was hoping that someone could help me shed some light on why moral people would have children or pets.

 

I was thinking that I would describe my thought process, so here we go:

 

If you bring a child to this world or pay someone to have it for you it is not the awaited childs wish. It is merely your own wish since the child is yet to exist.

 

I can see to reasons why bringing a child to this world would happen:

 

1 You have by bad judgement had unprotected sex with a women- she is now pregnant.

 

2 You have a woman who you love and wish to have a child.

 

However one does not have children to become unhappy, as long as it is not forced upon you by various means, that to me look like you want a child so that you could get happy.

 

So by my reasoning having children is a most selfish and sick act.

 

Why do I say that?

 

Lets say that you chances of bringing a new child to this world who will live a very happy life, no sickness, no wars, always mentally stable and good personal economy with a lovely woman or man are 99 % sure. For 99 % of new lives this will be the course of their lives.

 

Now to the 1 %. This 1 % will be mentally ill, get cancer, used by women and in the end getting killed of a piano falling over him. 

 

Knowing that this 1 % by empirical evidence is heavily underestimated, how could you do it? How could you even as a moral person contemplate doing this to another person or animal?

 

Adopting however is a to my a completely different matter. If you adopt a child who otherwise is destined to grow up to become a hustler or whore, this to me would be a moral action. The same if a cat comes to you doorstep asking for food and you end up taking care of it. Both the cat and the child would probably be better of. Instead of the cat dying of hunger you feed it and instead of the child becoming a hustler or a whore the child will have an education and loving parents maybe a boy or girlfriend.

 

One could argue that one could off one self once you are unhappy but you wouldn't have to do this most sad thing if you were not born. If you off yourself your parents would become most sad and unhappy thus again proving that a child is like a toy for parents got to make themselves happy. This proving their selfishness.

 

Morality is a choice. I know that if all people would be reasoning like I do humanity would cease to exist. So this is merely a pure moral question. 

 

So is my reasoning flawed?

[Hannibal]

Life is joyous. The 1% you talk about, all things being equal (which they aren't - but lets give it the benefit of the doubt) is called bad luck.

[labmath2]

I think the 1 percent assumption is overly optimistic. If you really wanted to do it, you would ask what are the chances they would be unhappy?

[Tweak]

Life is joyous. The 1% you talk about, all things being equal (which they aren't - but lets give it the benefit of the doubt) is called bad luck.

Thats the point tough, you know that there is a chans of "bad luck". Having had a lot of different jobs one including driving around sick, old and mentally ill people this "bad luck" is quite horrendous. The 1 % was merely an example of that it doesn't matter how little the chans of bad luck there is, as long as it exists. 

[ragdoll]

Yeah, life is great.  Once you get away from this depression you seem to be going through you'll most likely realize that even us 1% that lived a shitty life can break out into "the good life" with some work.

 

 

Also, alot of your assertions are very random and don't make a whole lot of rational sense.  Like when you say that people must want to have children to be happy.  Some single women I have known have chosen to have children so that they can have someone that loves them but I've never heard of a husband and wife deciding to have children to "make them happy."  Wouldn't 99% of people being happy actually be empirical evidence saying that you should have children?  

 

Say you have a 99% chance in black jack to win $10 and a 1% chance to lose $100.  Do you take that bet over and over or not?

[Mister Mister]

 

 

If you bring a child to this world or pay someone to have it for you it is not the awaited childs wish. It is merely your own wish since the child is yet to exist.

 

 

  As far as I can tell, most children who are not severely neglected or abused are pretty happy to be alive.

[Tweak]

  As far as I can tell, most children who are not severely neglected or abused are pretty happy to be alive.

Yes. I completely understand what you are saying. I have had some (1 or 2) people who asked to kill them because of pain, they themselves being unable to. 

 

As to " As far as I can tell, most children who are not severely neglected or abused are pretty happy to be alive."  My mom is a what we call "day- mother" I have yet to see a child who is to be acknowledged as a person who is not being neglected by their parents.

 

 

[jpahmad]

Yes. I completely understand what you are saying. I have had some (1 or 2) people who asked to kill them because of pain, they themselves being unable to. 

 

As to " As far as I can tell, most children who are not severely neglected or abused are pretty happy to be alive."  My mom is a what we call "day- mother" I have yet to see a child who is to be acknowledged as a person who is not being neglected by their parents.

 

 

 

So by your reasoning, everyone should stop reproducing and start adopting.  What happens when everyone has already been adopted?  Is it permissible to then reproduce?  I don't see how life risks to a new-born would ever be eliminated.  Since life-risks can not be eliminated, according to your sense of morality, we would all have to end of the human race in order to be moral.  

[Tweak]

So by your reasoning, everyone should stop reproducing and start adopting.  What happens when everyone has already been adopted?  Is it permissible to then reproduce?  I don't see how life risks to a new-born would ever be eliminated.  Since life-risks can not be eliminated, according to your sense of morality, we would all have to end of the human race in order to be moral.  

As I stated before in my first post this is something I very well understand, that by my reasoning the human race would cease to exist. However the question is directed to see if my reasoning is flawed from a moral standpoint. 

 

Since a wanted child is yet to exist it can not be hurt nor feel joy for the very simple reason that it does not exist. Thus bringing one in to the world, create life if you will, ultimately leads to the possibility of hurt.

[jpahmad]

As I stated before in my first post this is something I very well understand, that by my reasoning the human race would cease to exist. However the question is directed to see if my reasoning is flawed from a moral standpoint. 

 

 

Does it make a difference to you whether your reasoning is valid or not?  If I said, "it is valid", would you then accept that the human species should perish?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I would challenge one of your premises. You say it is not the child's wish to be born. Sure. But that doesn't mean we are doing something against the child's wish. The child is not born yet. It does not have preferences or rights; it is not even existent until you create it, and thus the idea that you'd align your actions with the preferences of something which doesn't exist is nonsensical. 

 

You say that perhaps it is a selfish act to have children. Perhaps people expect to get joy or happiness from having a child. I would say this is probably 100% the case a lot of the time. But this doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral. If I create a child wanting to use it and abuse it for sadistic purposes, that is immoral and selfish. If I want to create a child because I expect to enjoy parenting and raising a child with love and virtue, then this is selfish, but not immoral.

 

It is true that society and culture can be very ugly and immoral. We should take accountability for bringing our children into such a world, letting them know with compassion and empathy about the ugly things in the world when they are of age, and sharing with them all our advice of how to stay healthy morally, physically, and mentally. This is a life-long process and commitment to our children, but ultimately I think a strong bond built on honesty, trust, empathy, and compassion will be worth more to the child then the state of the world will depress them. Sure, we are responsible for bringing a child into the world, and we are most responsible for what they are exposed to in their early years, but this does not mean we have to bear the burden of so many other immoral people who have chosen to be immoral. 

[Tweak]

Does it make a difference to you whether your reasoning is valid or not?  If I said, "it is valid", would you then accept that the human species should perish?

Now we are taking about what what I would prefer and has nothing to do with the question at hand. 

[jpahmad]

Now we are taking about what what I would prefer and has nothing to do with the question at hand. 

 

O.K., just curious.  What would you prefer?

[Tweak]

O.K., just curious.  What would you prefer?

I would say that I would prefer to see new people coming to life for next generations to go beyond the stars.

[PGP]

I'm reading "Brave New World" atm. They bypassed all of this by pre-programming and brainwashing. No suffering. 

[Tweak]

I'm reading "Brave New World" atm. They bypassed all of this by pre-programming and brainwashing. No suffering. 

 

I'm reading "Brave New World" atm. They bypassed all of this by pre-programming and brainwashing. No suffering. 

Ive read "Brave New World" too. You should check out his history. He is one of the shapers of the word that we live in today, he has been very busy. By the way its still the creation of lives...

I would challenge one of your premises. You say it is not the child's wish to be born. Sure. But that doesn't mean we are doing something against the child's wish. The child is not born yet. It does not have preferences or rights; it is not even existent until you create it, and thus the idea that you'd align your actions with the preferences of something which doesn't exist is nonsensical. 

 

You say that perhaps it is a selfish act to have children. Perhaps people expect to get joy or happiness from having a child. I would say this is probably 100% the case a lot of the time. But this doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral. If I create a child wanting to use it and abuse it for sadistic purposes, that is immoral and selfish. If I want to create a child because I expect to enjoy parenting and raising a child with love and virtue, then this is selfish, but not immoral.

 

It is true that society and culture can be very ugly and immoral. We should take accountability for bringing our children into such a world, letting them know with compassion and empathy about the ugly things in the world when they are of age, and sharing with them all our advice of how to stay healthy morally, physically, and mentally. This is a life-long process and commitment to our children, but ultimately I think a strong bond built on honesty, trust, empathy, and compassion will be worth more to the child then the state of the world will depress them. Sure, we are responsible for bringing a child into the world, and we are most responsible for what they are exposed to in their early years, but this does not mean we have to bear the burden of so many other immoral people who have chosen to be immoral. 

You have given me a lot to think about. Thank you for you answer I very much appreciate it.  

[William Wyatt]

Adoption is very useful, which is why it is one of the first things that should be deregulated... 

However I believe it is vital for virtuous people to raise children. Otherwise the dysfuctional people keep breeding and raising more traumatized dysfunctional people, they will vastly outnumber the virtuous people...
 
Live frugally and raise a child in the 20s then pursue wealth and career parth later.

have kid in 30s or 40s, but risk deformities... << this or adoption may be the only option for those whoa are still struggling with trauma in their 20s like myself... 



 

[Tweak]

I would challenge one of your premises. You say it is not the child's wish to be born. Sure. But that doesn't mean we are doing something against the child's wish. The child is not born yet. It does not have preferences or rights; it is not even existent until you create it, and thus the idea that you'd align your actions with the preferences of something which doesn't exist is nonsensical. 

 

You say that perhaps it is a selfish act to have children. Perhaps people expect to get joy or happiness from having a child. I would say this is probably 100% the case a lot of the time. But this doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral. If I create a child wanting to use it and abuse it for sadistic purposes, that is immoral and selfish. If I want to create a child because I expect to enjoy parenting and raising a child with love and virtue, then this is selfish, but not immoral.

 

It is true that society and culture can be very ugly and immoral. We should take accountability for bringing our children into such a world, letting them know with compassion and empathy about the ugly things in the world when they are of age, and sharing with them all our advice of how to stay healthy morally, physically, and mentally. This is a life-long process and commitment to our children, but ultimately I think a strong bond built on honesty, trust, empathy, and compassion will be worth more to the child then the state of the world will depress them. Sure, we are responsible for bringing a child into the world, and we are most responsible for what they are exposed to in their early years, but this does not mean we have to bear the burden of so many other immoral people who have chosen to be immoral. 

"The idea that you'd align your actions with the preferences of something which doesn't exist is nonsensical. " You have a valid point. However as humans we know for example that if I push the break all the way down in my car on a freeway we know what could happen. I could get hit by the car behind me or there could be no car and nothing would happen. This situation doesn´t exist yet, am I then nonsensical because i see the possible outcome? 

[Tweak]

I'm reading "Brave New World" atm. They bypassed all of this by pre-programming and brainwashing. No suffering. 

Its a great book. Ive read it. This system is still creating life tough.

Adoption is very useful, which is why it is one of the first things that should be deregulated... 

 

However I believe it is vital for virtuous people to raise children. Otherwise the dysfuctional people keep breeding and raising more traumatized dysfunctional people, they will vastly outnumber the virtuous people...

 

Live frugally and raise a child in the 20s then pursue wealth and career parth later.

 

have kid in 30s or 40s, but risk deformities... << this or adoption may be the only option for those whoa are still struggling with trauma in their 20s like myself... 

 

 

 

 

I agree.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Now to the 1 %. This 1 % will be mentally ill, get cancer, used by women and in the end getting killed of a piano falling over him. 

 

Knowing that this 1 % by empirical evidence is heavily underestimated, how could you do it? How could you even as a moral person contemplate doing this to another person or animal?

That's like saying I'm going to cut of my head in order to prevent possible brain cancer. If one is considering the welfare of the child and what IT would choose it's extremely reasonable to assume the child would prefer to have an existence rather than be condemned to non-existence based on the chance it might suffer. 

[drkmdn]

Great post and observations. Since I started therapy and doing inner child work, I began realizing how I used pets to externalize my inner child. I punished and praised accordingly. It was also great to be the boss of someone for a while and have ultimate control. Messed up.

 

Now when I see people who surround themselves with kids and dogs who were bred just to please them it really pisses me off. I always always feel like saying LEAVE THE DOG....PUT THE PUGS DOWN...STEP AWAY FROM THE TODDLERS... go get some freaking therapy. Geez.

I am the product of dysfunctional and traumatized people who should have been fixed from birth. At least they were put down early (before age 50) but not before they could have 3 illegitimate children who would suffer greatly in life.

 

I am furious at my mother for having me and my siblings and raising us fatherless in poverty.

 

I am estranged from whatever family I still have alive. I feel alone, broken and like I will never belong in this world.

 

Single mothers are incredibly selfish people.

[J. D. Stembal]

One of the most important reasons men and women are having pets instead of kids is because of the debt slave system imposed by the Federal Reserve and command economy, and that pets are significantly cheaper than kids. Wall Street gets all the attention, legislation and the bail outs, but people have more and more money stolen from them each year. Thus, they are having less children unless having a child will generate welfare monies.

 

The longer the Mandrake Machine of central banking distorts the productivity of the economy, and devalues the saving capacity of families, the more this trend will continue until no one but welfare recipients have children. Only a government default on the national debt can save us at this point.

 

I don't think you can manufacture a philosophic proof for whether having children is moral or not. It's a biologic imperative for life. That being said, the decision to have children should be voluntary, and not coerced. If we continue down this totalitarian path to a socialist paradise, we may eventually see legally forced reproduction.

[Tweak]

Great post and observations. Since I started therapy and doing inner child work, I began realizing how I used pets to externalize my inner child. I punished and praised accordingly. It was also great to be the boss of someone for a while and have ultimate control. Messed up.

 

Now when I see people who surround themselves with kids and dogs who were bred just to please them it really pisses me off. I always always feel like saying LEAVE THE DOG....PUT THE PUGS DOWN...STEP AWAY FROM THE TODDLERS... go get some freaking therapy. Geez.

I am the product of dysfunctional and traumatized people who should have been fixed from birth. At least they were put down early (before age 50) but not before they could have 3 illegitimate children who would suffer greatly in life.

 

I am furious at my mother for having me and my siblings and raising us fatherless in poverty.

 

I am estranged from whatever family I still have alive. I feel alone, broken and like I will never belong in this world.

 

Single mothers are incredibly selfish people.

Tank you. So basically you see the word like I do. Sorry you hade to suffer like this.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"However as humans we know for example that if I push the break all the way down in my car on a freeway we know what could happen. I could get hit by the car behind me or there could be no car and nothing would happen. This situation doesn´t exist yet, am I then nonsensical because i see the possible outcome?"

 

No, but this is different. The person in the car behind you exists. When you are contemplating having children, they don't exist yet. You can't ask something which doesn't exist whether it wants to be created. Now I think that it is the job of the parent to have rational standards based on the wisdom and understanding of where happiness comes from in life to provide all the necessary things for that baby to become happy. But I don't think I needed a perfect world to be a happy child, and I don't think I need one to be happy as an adult. I think I just needed two parents who loved me, and I would be more than thankful enough to be here, with a strong foundation, fighting for justice in the world.

 

If it really is an issue for an adult child, and they are upset that, even though they were loved and raised well, that they were brought into a world with a lot of evil in it, then that is something they would do well to discuss with their parents. I imagine it actually would be upsetting. The fact that the world is the way it is is upsetting. But would the adult child feel they have been morally wronged by being brought into the world as it is, despite the fact that their parents raised them with love and care and were great examples of virtue? I don't think so. And I don't think it is immoral to do so. It is not a violation of the NAP or a form of psychological coercion in any sense I can think of.

 

However it is a little more complicated when your childhood sucks. Mine sucked, but still I am still so glad I am alive and here living to see such an interesting time (I consider it great luck - what better time to be born?), and have the opportunity to live virtuously enough to make an example for others. Sure, there are sometimes and have been more in my past where I really did feel in the moment that I didn't want to exist - but I never took that feeling to it's logical extreme. I am very glad I didn't because I know I would have regretted it.

 

Now, your childhood may have sucked more than mine. I get the sense that it was bad regardless. And I really am so sorry for that. But as someone who still deals with feelings of nihilism occasionally, and who still sometimes feels like they wish they didn't exist, I would say my perception is that when I am feeling that way it is actually my unexpressed inner child who was trapped in a hell house (single mother here too) for so long, who was hopeless and could not do anything about his situation and so wishes he weren't there at all. Unfortunately those feelings went on for a long time into my teens and now into my 20s before I found FDR and have been helped to realize that adulthood and free will fundamentally change the reality of my situation. Now I am not dependent and have the means to find happiness through virtue and doing things I enjoy in life. Life I now understand is an opportunity, my decisions influence where I will go, and I can have a conception of the future to plan ahead and aim to accrue a wealth of experiences, joys and pains, challenges and pleasures, knowing that I am for the most part the maker of my own destiny and my own emotional reality. I say for the most part because of course childhood trauma is and I assume for at least a very long time will be a defining part of me, and to the extent people have had even worse childhoods that may be even more true. But generally I am glad I exist and was created, even despite all the wrong that was done to me. I think, given my perception of my own capacity for free will, if did not want to live at this age and wanted to take my own life, I could not say my childhood or my parents were responsible for that. Sure, those things are influences. But as bad as my childhood was, I still see clear evidence I have the power to surmount the feelings of my childhood and replace them, work towards, experiencing more enjoyable feelings.

 

But sorry both to you Andre and as well as to you Darkman. Darkman, your childhood sounded really awful and I'm sorry for that. And andre, you said you relate to it, so I'm sorry for that, too.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

That being said, the decision to have children should be voluntary, and not coerced. If we continue down this totalitarian path to a socialist paradise, we may eventually see legally forced reproduction.

I think you are just as likely to see legally enforced antinatalism because of the environmentalist hysteria. 

[J. D. Stembal]

I think you are just as likely to see legally enforced antinatalism because of the environmentalist hysteria. 

 

The neo-Malthusian case has always been very weak. Paul Erlich painted a bleak picture of a suffering future by predicting that the death rate would catch up with the birth rate in order to bring the population of the Earth into balance. We are coming up on 50 years since he postulated this, and it has not happened yet.

 

Life expectancies are poised to drop in the next generation, but for reasons Ehrlich could not have known exactly. He speculated that the poor would starve to death in the zero-sum game of the free market, which is technically happening slowly, but due to metabolic disease (obesity) and not a lack of food. Ehrlich ignored the built-in price discovery mechanism of the free market, which would communicate to families how many children they could effectively raise. The Malthusians equate us to dumb beasts, like deer, which without a natural predator will reproduce until there is no more food left. Catholics and the poor of developing nations are the oft cited examples of dumb beasts in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb.

 

Forced reproduction, while still very unlikely, is more likely than forced sterilizations. A dip in birth rates is a lagging indicator of reckless central banking policies, as I stated in my previous post. Yesterday's solutions are today's problems, and the government welcomes more problems with open arms. Fewer children means less human collateral to finance the national debt. At some point, if the dollar isn't allowed to crash, we will be encouraged to breed for our country because there are not enough able-bodied Americans working to feed and clothe the poor. Not having a child will be considered indulgent, sinful or selfish. There may even be legal or financial ramifications for not breeding. How else will the Federal Reserve keep this dead currency going?

[Tweak]

One of the most important reasons men and women are having pets instead of kids is because of the debt slave system imposed by the Federal Reserve and command economy, and that pets are significantly cheaper than kids. Wall Street gets all the attention, legislation and the bail outs, but people have more and more money stolen from them each year. Thus, they are having less children unless having a child will generate welfare monies.

 

The longer the Mandrake Machine of central banking distorts the productivity of the economy, and devalues the saving capacity of families, the more this trend will continue until no one but welfare recipients have children. Only a government default on the national debt can save us at this point.

 

I don't think you can manufacture a philosophic proof for whether having children is moral or not. It's a biologic imperative for life. That being said, the decision to have children should be voluntary, and not coerced. If we continue down this totalitarian path to a socialist paradise, we may eventually see legally forced reproduction.

 

One of the most important reasons men and women are having pets instead of kids is because of the debt slave system imposed by the Federal Reserve and command economy, and that pets are significantly cheaper than kids. Wall Street gets all the attention, legislation and the bail outs, but people have more and more money stolen from them each year. Thus, they are having less children unless having a child will generate welfare monies.

 

The longer the Mandrake Machine of central banking distorts the productivity of the economy, and devalues the saving capacity of families, the more this trend will continue until no one but welfare recipients have children. Only a government default on the national debt can save us at this point.

 

I don't think you can manufacture a philosophic proof for whether having children is moral or not. It's a biologic imperative for life. That being said, the decision to have children should be voluntary, and not coerced. If we continue down this totalitarian path to a socialist paradise, we may eventually see legally forced reproduction.

" If we continue down this totalitarian path to a socialist paradise, we may eventually see legally forced reproduction." No socialists would be the last ones to do that in the future. Socialists have for a long time tried to reduce the amount of humans.

[Hannibal]

Is it immoral to drive your car - because someone might possibly fall into the road infront of you?

I don't think that your apparent dilema falls into the realms of morality.

[Tweak]

Is it immoral to drive your car - because someone might possibly fall into the road infront of you?

I don't think that your apparent dilema falls into the realms of morality.

"Is it immoral to drive your car - because someone might possibly fall into the road infront of you?" No I cant see how that could be immoral.

 

Is it moral to facilitate conditions on the road that greatly endangers people?

[AncapFTW]

Part of the OP that I don't think anyone has addressed, if people don't have children to make themselves happier, why do they do it?

 

Every action a person takes benefits them in some way, even if it is forced on them, otherwise they wouldn't do it.  So, knowing how much it will cost them in health, money, etc, why do people choose to have children?  They "just want one"?  That's happiness.  "Biological drive"?  That's stress relief, which is linked to happiness.  "Feel obligated" or "Accidental pregnancy and won't terminate?"  That's a moral choice, which is also linked to happiness.

 

Now, I'm not saying that it is immoral to do something to increase your own happiness, but when creating another person to do that, you have an obligation to that person which most people fail at in some way.  I wouldn't say it is immoral to have a child, but it isn't exactly moral either.

[drkmdn]

Tank you. So basically you see the word like I do. Sorry you hade to suffer like this.

 

Thanks, Sorry for you too. We'll get through it