Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j9ej91k wrote

[deleted]

52

ShieldOnTheWall t1_j9evhet wrote

You do you bro

15

aecorbie t1_j9hm7hb wrote

Ah, but procreating is inherently immoral. I wanted to discuss one of my favourite arguments in favour of antinatalism, but the person defending natalism deleted their comments shortly before I had a chance to respond. Guess I’ll just leave my reply here.

For starters: you cannot possibly prevent suffering in anyone’s life, really. You can only attempt at reducing it. No matter how much love, affection and protection you provide for your child in an attempt to ensure they live their best life, there will be always a possibility of them getting kidnapped, raped, murdered, otherwise violently harmed, or inevitably dying of either chronic illness or senescence if they somehow avoid all of the above. Therefore, you are to blame for imposing the capacity to suffer on your child (that would otherwise not exist and accordingly not suffer).

Now, bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, suffering and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither suffering nor pleasure. We both agree that the absence of suffering is good. The happiness they experience throughout life is also good; however, a lack thereof is only a negative factor for the already existing, because only they can have the negative experience of deprivation. Therefore, a lack of pleasure for the unborn child is not bad in a moral sense.

To simplify and, hopefully, systematise this for the experiencing individual:

  1. The presence of pain (suffering) is bad.
  2. The presence of pleasure (happiness) is good.
  3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
  4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

And an additional dichotomy that necessarily follows from these conclusions, if I may:

  1. There is no moral obligation to produce a child even if we could be sure that it will be very happy throughout its life.
  2. There is a moral obligation not to produce a child if it can be foreseen that it will be unhappy.

We can clearly see that even with the grossly unrealistic assumption that the amount of happiness in one’s life quantitatively outweighs the amount of suffering, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.

−6

fibsequ t1_j9hrpuw wrote

Your argument rests on four premises, which are not universally agreed upon as stipulation or truth. In your worldview, and perhaps the worldview of most people (although neither are relevant without being universal), the premises you numbered 1-4 may be accepted as truth.

That does not mean everyone accepts those premises, and believes suffering to be bad or pleasure to be good. Hedonism, epicureanism, and other pleasure-seeking and suffering-avoiding ideologies are exalted by some and condemned by others. With words as nebulous as “good” and “bad” I’m not sure how you can definitively claim “pleasure to be good” and “suffering to be bad,” let alone expect everyone to subscribe to those notions.

Your other two premises also suffer from the vagueness of words such as “good” and “bad,” but even without those deficiencies your argument holds no water. Assuming everyone believes your premises numbered 1-4, or that said premises are somehow a universal truth regardless of the beliefs or individuals is not substantiated by any evidence. Your feelings that “suffering is bad, pleasure is good” may be relevant to your beliefs, but are far from objective truth.

Note: this is not a defense of having children or choosing not to. I think there are legitimate arguments for both sides; I do not think this is an example.

10

aecorbie t1_j9huntx wrote

Could you please elaborate on how the argument “holds no water” other than stating that there are some who might disagree with it? I would appreciate it if you addressed the premises it’s build upon rather than broadly rejecting them.

Regarding vagueness of the words “good” and “bad”, you might have a point here, but I’d rather we got to the underlying virtue ethics after addressing more general problems one might have with those premises. As for the argument itself, however, I think even an approach as simplistic as negative utilitarianism (which I myself am not overly fond of, but I digress) would suffice to demonstrate the validity of my dichotomy in relation to the morality of having children.

4

Dripdry42 t1_j9hrwsu wrote

This brought some more tranquility... I think you've got something there. Thanks for the clarity.

2

ilolvu t1_j9qverg wrote

>3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
>
>4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

For an Epicurean, these statements would be false. Pleasure and pain are experiences of living beings, not abstract Platonic Ideas. The absence of pain is always enjoyed by someone, and the absence of pleasure is always a deprivation on someone.

>2. There is a moral obligation not to produce a child if it can be foreseen that it will be unhappy.

This statement is falsified, for an Epicurean, because such foresight is impossible... especially for a human.

>We can clearly see that even with the grossly unrealistic assumption that the amount of happiness in one’s life quantitatively outweighs the amount of suffering, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.

Epicurus didn't think that procreation was bad because we can't guarantee that the offspring will be happy... but because the raising of children is a painful burden on the parent.

1

[deleted] t1_j9fw8r3 wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_j9fyviq wrote

[deleted]

−9

[deleted] t1_j9g0s8k wrote

[deleted]

7

[deleted] t1_j9g3udn wrote

[removed]

−1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9hv9pq wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

[deleted] t1_j9g2j66 wrote

[removed]

−4

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9hvf83 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

[deleted] t1_j9f3lx1 wrote

[deleted]

−1

1nquiringMinds t1_j9fbkl6 wrote

>constantly learning more about myself and the world by experiencing more of it.

Not having kids lets me do this, just in a different way. It doesn't make me "less", just different from you.

35

JimmyShaka t1_j9fmaf3 wrote

Agreed. As a parent having children is monumental, and it’s sincerely not for everyone. I respect anyone’s decision to not head down this path. It’s a tough one, but filled with love. That being said, Reddit to me feels distinctly extra antinatalism. Not in this thread specifically, but the platform at large. And I feel as though more people should share how enriching an experience it can be. Because it sincerely can be the greatest thing you have ever done.

TLDR; both walks of life are valid and we should support both parents and individuals.

12

branedead t1_j9geuds wrote

I think my advice is if you genuinely want children, do your damnedest not to inflict intergenerational trauma upon them. I know VERY few who manage it.

3

aecorbie t1_j9heuig wrote

My advice would rather be that if you want children and think you can manage parenting incredibly well, you should adopt a child instead of procreating. That way you actually reduce suffering instead of creating it in the first place (and forcing the burden of human consciousness upon the individual, little things like that).

2

imsorryifimtoxic t1_j9ifout wrote

While you, and antinatalism, argue that bringing a child into the world is inherently harmful and should be avoided for unpredictable risks, there are good reasons to believe that some people are more suited to parenthood than others. For instance, if a person is biologically healthy and intelligent, they may be more likely to provide a nurturing environment for their child and raise them to be healthy and successful adults.

Yes they should and could adopt, but they should also be inclined to have at least one kid. If two people have only one child and do not have any additional children, they are technically contributing to a decrease in population growth. While this may seem counterintuitive at first, it is important to understand that population growth is not just about the total number of people in the world, but also about the rate of change in that number. When 2 people have only 1 child, they are replacing themselves in the population. However, they are not contributing to any additional population growth beyond replacement level.

Also, from an evolutionary perspective, reproduction is a fundamental biological drive that has helped ensure the survival of our species for millennia. While it is true that overpopulation and other social and environmental factors can make it more difficult to raise a child in some circumstances, that does not mean that procreation is always wrong. In fact, it may be argued that individuals who are best equipped to raise children should have them, in order to ensure the continued success and well-being of our species.

While it is true that having a child involves a certain degree of risk and uncertainty, this is true of all human endeavors. Life is inherently unpredictable, and there are no guarantees that any action we take will lead to a positive outcome. However, by living our lives with intention and purpose, and by taking reasonable steps to minimize risk, we can increase our chances of success and happiness.

Antinatalism may have some valid points, but it is not a philosophy that is suited to everyone. For individuals who are biologically healthy and intelligent, having a child can be a meaningful and rewarding experience which also contributes to the well-being of our species as a whole. I'm all for adopting children too. I'm not biologically healthy and hope that biologically healthy people will continue to have kids for the sake of humanity. I personally plan on adopting.

If you don't like humanity, that's a personal problem.

2

tisused t1_j9gxif5 wrote

Do you have anything to offer for those who feel that it's the childrens suffering that is the issue?

0

[deleted] t1_j9h0kma wrote

[deleted]

0

[deleted] t1_j9h624h wrote

[deleted]

2

[deleted] t1_j9hcbcl wrote

[deleted]

−2

[deleted] t1_j9hd9y8 wrote

[removed]

2

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9i437u wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

aecorbie t1_j9hf1oc wrote

Forcing existence upon someone is inherently egotistical.

1