(April 1, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Brometheus Wrote: Hear me out.
- If no God or after-life exists;
- There is no other point to being, than what we make of our lives here;
- And, if some children will find in this life great fulfillment, while others find incredible pain and suffering- which we cannot possibly foreknow;
- To wager that a child will enjoy life, to a degree greater than the sum of the pain and suffering;
- Which is to wager with somebody elses life, potentially exposing another human being to immense grief and pain;
- Which is needless, considering the fact that their is no reason for us to be, or to continue to exist;
- And, that the, act of having children is not necessary for any purpose other than our own gratification;
- Thus, having children is a selfish, greedy act which can impose great pain on another human being;
- Having children is thus un-ehtical and immoral.
What do you think?
I think you will want to tighten up the argument a bit. You can do a bit of online searching for various arguments that others have made on this issue, and see what you think of what others have to say about it.
You could, for example, point out the fact that everyone who lives suffers, and therefore creating someone when one does not need to do so involves creating unnecessary suffering. It is not merely that there is a potential for people suffering: Everyone, in fact, suffers some in life. Is it moral to cause unnecessary suffering for someone else? I will leave it to you to consider and think about for yourself.
You will also want to consider the differences of circumstances that different people face in different parts of the world. For example, if one lives in a place (or time) without decent birth control, one's situation is quite different from someone else who has access to good birth control.
Another thing to do is to distinguish between the "what if everyone does this" versus the practical outcome in the real world, "what if you do this." Here things like overpopulation may come into play. We can be pretty sure that people will be killing each other over resources in the future, as the earth can only support a finite number of people.
And what should be perfectly obvious, whenever dealing with a question of the form,
should I do X?, you should also deal with the issue of what happens if you don't do X. The reason being, if not doing X is something extremely bad, then that would likely mean that one should do X unless X also was extremely bad. If X were only mildly bad, it would be preferable to not X, if not X were extremely bad. And, of course, if not X were something extremely good, then that would mean that you should not do X if X is bad at all. In all cases where one is considering an option, one should consider what happens if one does not select that option.
You might also want to look into discussions about god in which people ask the question, "would a perfect being create any beings?" (They are often discussed more broadly, "would a perfect being create anything?") You may find useful principles and analogies, as that is an example of a being creating other beings, when it does not need to do so. Is that good, bad, or indifferent? (Naturally, of course, people are not perfect, but is their creation of other beings part of their imperfection and badness, or is it good or indifferent?)
You might also want to adapt your argument for dealing with religious people, too. For example, suppose we say that 1 is false. Will this make the argument any different? If we look at
traditional Christianity, by breeding you are creating more people who may end up burning in hell forever. Doesn't that mean that there is more at stake, with the potential for it being infinitely worse than if there is no afterlife at all? One then, of course, also is faced with the idea of being fruitful and multiply, which, however, is countered with the idea that it is better to not marry and be celibate (1 Corinthians 7:8-9, and even the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 support this, though it is not a command), so there is a Biblical support for the idea that it is better not to breed, even though everyone remembers the "be fruitful and multiply" stuff, which was specifically commanded of Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:27-28) and Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:1), and that has already been done, and so being finished, there is no need to do more on that. We now have the New Testament in which Jesus recommends that you not breed. So the argument is not in any way dependent upon 1 being true.
With that, you might want to consider getting rid of any nonessential parts of the argument, should you decide that any of them are not essential, in order to give the argument broader appeal (not that it will ever actually have broad appeal; see below).
You may also want to work into the matter more details. For your # 7, the motivations, say something more about:
Brometheus Wrote:I'm a little pissed that I was created merely for somebody's self-fulfillment.
...
Also, keep in mind that your argument will piss off a lot of people who do breed, as many will take it as a personal attack on them. And many will take it as a slur on their ancestors as well; their parents, grandparents, etc., as they were all breeders, too. So you should be ready for that. When people are angry, they do not reason as well as when they are calm. And with people generally, they do not reason overly well anyway, but with many people when they are angry, it is often impossible (or practically impossible) for them to see reason about anything pertaining to whatever it is that angers them.
And in online posting, remember, some people will take a bit of what you say and quote it out of context, pretending that you did not say some of the other stuff that deals with their question. If they did not get it the first time, they are unlikely to get it a second time, which means you will want to be very careful in the construction of your argument.
Have fun with it.
