Is Human Reproduction Un-Ethical?

[Mudhammam]

On the one hand, I think it would be a supremely fulfilling experience creating and raising a family.

On the other hand, I'm just like, "Meh. Actually, that sounds awful."

[Clueless Morgan]

2.  The likelihood that highly ethical people will behave unethically is not statistically significant.

The likelihood of ethical people behaving unethically is a practical guarantee.  I'm not sure any person on the forums could claim to be 100% ethical 100% of the time.

Also, I'd say that your assumption is demonstrably wrong: "Causing suffering in children is unethical."  Vaccines cause suffering, but are not unethical since statistically you are doing what is most likely to bring the greater good: reduced ill-time in a lifetime, and greater survivability.  Taking away their handphones when they play too many games will cause suffering, but is clearly not unethical.

I'm not convinced this is a good example as the suffering caused by a child receiving a vaccine is, in the vast majority of cases, momentary and fleeting.  The momentary suffering is then seen as a necessary discomfort to achieve the greater good of public health and preventing pandemic diseases from spreading.

Confusing.

Could have been stated way more simply as:

1. Causing a child to suffer is unethical and immoral.
2. Bringing a child into the world might cause them to suffer.
.:. 3. Bringing a child into the world is unethical and immoral.

As for what I think, there's a helluva lot riding on that "might".

I'm a little pissed that I was created merely for somebody's self-fulfillment.

That's not even relevant to what I posted.  The above syllogism says nothing about the motives of the parents, nor suggests that those motives are purely for "self-fulfillment."  

But what is the point of continuing the human-species?  Their contributions, if any, benefit only to themselves, but they themselves do not need to exist for anything.

You're assuming that our species evolving serves some kind of grand, teleological purpose, that we evolved to do something in particular or that our species being here has some greater meaning in the world that we need to fulfill, which is incorrect.

If we arose by chance and are here for nothing, this is the total sum of all that any of us can contribute, in the large scheme of things. 

Incorrect again.  As highly-social animals, we have developed complex social and cultural systems in which we each contribute something of value to ourselves and, usually, to others.  Just because we didn't evolve with a teleological purpose doesn't mean we can't give our own lives purpose.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Calling reproduction immoral because people are sometimes unhappy is like deeming flight to be unsafe transport because sometimes planes crash.

That's not a good comparison, because people are very frequently unhappy and in pain, but planes rarely crash, considering how many flights there are.

If we look at the world today, there are plenty of people who have quite a lot of troubles that are obvious enough, and then there are those living "lives of quiet desperation."  There are a lot of people with existential angst whose troubles are often not seen.

Also, there is nothing at all wrong with having never been conceived.  There is no downside to that.

Yes but the frequency is offset by the different significance of bad results. Plane crashes are rarely survivable. Unhappiness most often is survivable.

The idea that a negligible negative outcome should result in moral angst is silly, to me. Life's tough ... get a helmet. It's worth every minute.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The likelihood of ethical people behaving unethically is a practical guarantee.  I'm not sure any person on the forums could claim to be 100% ethical 100% of the time.

People who behave unethically are, by definition, not ethical people. 

But I did not say that it is an impossibility, just that the likelihood of it happening is not statistically significant.

Boru

[bennyboy]

Also, there is nothing at all wrong with having never been conceived.  There is no downside to that.

That's a flip.  Nobody's asking if refusing to reproduce is ethical.  The question is whether reproducing IS unethical.  And clearly it can't be, because ethics is a human contstruct.  That it exists implies human existence, so those who argue reproduction is unethical may as well argue that ethics is unethical, or that existence is unethical.

[robvalue]

My biggest problem with reproducing is the lack of consent. The kid gets no say whatsoever, and no easy way to get out of it once it's here. I know my line of thought is unusual, but I feel violated to have been thrust into this world. I now either have to suffer it, or go through with killing myself at some point (don't worry that's not a realistic option at the moment, I wouldn't do that to my wife).

Of course you can blame my outlook on me being depressed, and I'm looking at it negatively. I just don't have this idea, never have, that life is somehow amazing and a "gift". I've always looked at it as more of a curse. I wasn't always depressed, and I've always thought this way.

I'm not in any way trying to criticize people for having children or to try and guilt people into not doing it. I understand it's totally natural and it's what people do, and I'm sure mostly with the best of intentions. I'm only sharing my thoughts on the matter

[Thumpalumpacus]

Even in a bad day, I look on breathing as being pretty goddamned good.

[bennyboy]

My biggest problem with reproducing is the lack of consent. The kid gets no say whatsoever, and no easy way to get out of it once it's here. I know my line of thought is unusual, but I feel violated to have been thrust into this world.

I've seen this argument, but I find it silly.  Asking a non-existent fetus how it feels about growing into a world which it may not entirely enjoy, even though it is usually the actions and circumstances of the parents which are responsible for that lack of enjoyment, is pointless.

Obviously, it's unethical for fucked-up idiots with no money, education or love of life to bring a child into a life that almost certainly suck.  However, parents who are decent human beings, who sort their finances before making a baby, and who have an active interest in the children are probably the only ones who care about the ethics of reproduction anyway.  To me, this makes a reasonable rule of thumb: only those who at least ASK whether it is ethical to bring a child into their family are worthy of actually having children.

[Mister Agenda]

The assumption being that because it has been so, it will continue to be, without exception?

Do you think that 'statistically insignificant' means 'without exception'?

---

The likelihood of ethical people behaving unethically is a practical guarantee.  I'm not sure any person on the forums could claim to be 100% ethical 100% of the time.

I find it interesting that more than one person seems to have interpreted that as a claim that ethical people are 100% ethical and act ethically 100% of the time.

---

On a side note: There are millions of children in orphanages or foster care. Their suffering can be eased by ethical people adopting them. If you would be a fit parent and are qualified to adopt and so concerned with the quality of life for children that you think no one should have any lest they suffer, I think a moral obligation to do more for suffering children than not having any of your own is implied. As a bonus, one can try (gently) to raise your adopted children with your own ethics, possibly preventing them from reproducing themselves, and thus hastening the glorious day of human extinction.

[Clueless Morgan]

The likelihood of ethical people behaving unethically is a practical guarantee.  I'm not sure any person on the forums could claim to be 100% ethical 100% of the time.

People who behave unethically are, by definition, not ethical people. 

But I did not say that it is an impossibility, just that the likelihood of it happening is not statistically significant.

Boru

Then there's no such thing as an ethical person because everyone at some point in their life has behaved both ethically and unethically, thereby making everyone unethical.

Brometheus Wrote:

The assumption being that because it has been so, it will continue to be, without exception?

Do you think that 'statistically insignificant' means 'without exception'?

---

Clueless Morgan Wrote:

The likelihood of ethical people behaving unethically is a practical guarantee.  I'm not sure any person on the forums could claim to be 100% ethical 100% of the time.

I find it interesting that more than one person seems to have interpreted that as a claim that ethical people are 100% ethical and act ethically 100% of the time.

First off, could you make sure that your quote tags are attributing the quotes to the correct person?  The first quote was said by Brometheus, not me, and the second was was mine, not Boru's.


As for addressing the 100% ethical part, Boru's premise said that

2. The likelihood that highly ethical people will behave unethically is not statistically significant.

Which I disagree with.  Ethical people regularly behave unethically.  It's not statistically insignificant, it's a statistical guarantee.  What could be argued is whether the unethical behavior is mildly unethical or majorly unethical and where that dividing line falls.

Most ethical people commit mildly unethical acts but we nevertheless still call them ethical people - which is why I say that it's a statistical guarantee that ethical people nevertheless behave unethically.

What do we call an otherwise ethical person who commits one majorly unethical act in their life?  Are they still an ethical person? How many unethical acts (minor or major) must one commit before they lose the label "ethical person"?

If Boru is limiting "unethical" behavior to committing repeated, majorly unethical acts, then I would agree that ethical people behaving in such an unethical manner would not be statistically significant because they would no longer be considered ethical people.