Hear me out.

1. If no God or after-life exists;
   
2. There is no other point to being, than what we make of our lives here; 
   
3. And, if some children will find in this life great fulfillment, while others find incredible pain and suffering- which we cannot possibly foreknow; 
   
4. To wager that a child will enjoy life, to a degree greater than the sum of the pain and suffering;
   
5. Which is to wager with somebody elses life, potentially exposing another human being to immense grief and pain;
   
6. Which is needless, considering the fact that their is no reason for us to be, or to continue to exist;
   
7. And, that the, act of having children is not necessary for any purpose other than our own gratification; 
   
8. Thus, having children is a selfish, greedy act which can impose great pain on another human being;
   
9. Having children is thus un-ehtical and immoral. 
   

What do you think? 

A system of morality which does not promote the continued existence of the society of the moralizers won't have any moral impact.

(April 1, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Brometheus Wrote: Hear me out.

1. If no God or after-life exists;
   
2. There is no other point to being, than what we make of our lives here; 
   
3. And, if some children will find in this life great fulfillment, while others find incredible pain and suffering- which we cannot possibly foreknow; 
   
4. To wager that a child will enjoy life, to a degree greater than the sum of the pain and suffering;
   
5. Which is to wager with somebody elses life, potentially exposing another human being to immense grief and pain;
   
6. Which is needless, considering the fact that their is no reason for us to be, or to continue to exist;
   
7. And, that the, act of having children is not necessary for any purpose other than our own gratification; 
   
8. Thus, having children is a selfish, greedy act which can impose great pain on another human being;
   
9. Having children is thus un-ehtical and immoral. 
   

What do you think? 

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".

Having kids is a by-product of fucking.

Fucking is good.  I don't care what the religious fuckwits have to say about it.

1.  My parents were highly ethical people.

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

3.  My parents are responsible for the existence of me, that paragon of morality and virtue which stands before you.

4.  To bring into existence the Wonderment That Is Yours Truly cannot rationally be considered unethical.

C.  Human reproduction is therefore ethical.

Boru

Without the ability to foresee the future, then ethics must rely on probability. Will my children PROBABLY have a net positive value in their lives?

-If people saw only negative value in their lives, they would commit suicide
-Most people do not commit suicide
-Therefore most people see positive value in their lives
-Therefore my children would most likely see positive value in their lives
-Therefore preventing them from existing would have been selfish and unethical

Now, if you are bringing children into an environment where you KNOW they are likely to suffer greatly, like into conditions of extreme poverty, then that might be different. A crack baby, for example, or one with a severe genetic defect, might arguably be aborted with a view on the greater good.

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 don't think the world is a fit place for children.  I decided at an early age never to have them.  And I have not and will not have any.

Of course, others feel differently, and they will act in accordance with their ideas, not mine.

(April 1, 2015 at 7:33 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(April 1, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Brometheus Wrote: Hear me out.

1. If no God or after-life exists;
   
2. There is no other point to being, than what we make of our lives here; 
   
3. And, if some children will find in this life great fulfillment, while others find incredible pain and suffering- which we cannot possibly foreknow; 
   
4. To wager that a child will enjoy life, to a degree greater than the sum of the pain and suffering;
   
5. Which is to wager with somebody elses life, potentially exposing another human being to immense grief and pain;
   
6. Which is needless, considering the fact that their is no reason for us to be, or to continue to exist;
   
7. And, that the, act of having children is not necessary for any purpose other than our own gratification; 
   
8. Thus, having children is a selfish, greedy act which can impose great pain on another human being;
   
9. Having children is thus un-ehtical and immoral. 
   

What do you think? 

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.

(April 1, 2015 at 7:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 2.  The likelihood that highly ethical people will behave unethically is not statistically significant.

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

Brometheus, you really have a lot of overly-simple assumptions and definitions. First of all, you imply that ethics has as its goal the minimizing of suffering. But this isn't a very good way to look at it. A better goal of ethics would be establishing an environment in which humans can fairly play out their lives-- the freedom to pursue happiness, to act according to their natures so long as they don't interfere with others' ability to do the same. But ethics without humans isn't an improvement-- it's self-nihilating.

I've seen your arguments before, and have seen links to websites dedicated to the idea. However, under all that, I see a bunch of depressed goths with too little motivation to make something positive of their lives, and too little courage to commit suicide. You say it's unfair to bring babies into a world to suffer, but I hear: "Wahhh! I don't like life, and any baby born might end up like me, so nobody should have babies."

Most pain humans are put through in this world is inflicted by other humans or themselves. The only exception to this is disease (which there is now some control over), death and assosiated grief, natural disasters and the occasional accident or animal attack. None of those things are everyday occurrances in any one particular person's life. Pretty much everything else "painful" is the result of other people (either deliberately or through negligence) or self-inflicted. Poverty, some illnesses, malnutrition or obesity, violence, petty crimes, oppression, these are all human constructed things brought about deliberately or neglectfully through human activity.

Therefore the issue isn't "is it fair to have kids?" it is "how do we make society as fit as possible for raising a child?"

This is more unrelated, but I think given the context of the modern world - where we have 7 billion people, scrambling for resources that are nowhere near abundant enough to support that number - it is not ecological (I won't say "immoral") to be pumping out 10 kids each. We should be encouraging people to have less children, I daresay the future of humanity depends on it.