[split] Ethics - parental responsibility re: children

[Ahriman]

Well this is all very true. There can be only one Jacob the Based.

[Belacqua]

Uh dude the whole point of Buddhism is that you eventually come to the conclusion that suffering is something you do to yourself.

Like you are right now.

I don't know enough about Buddhism to say what its "whole point" is, but...

I hope it doesn't say that our suffering is just our own damn fault, and we can make it go away by an attitude adjustment.

[Ahriman]

Uh dude the whole point of Buddhism is that you eventually come to the conclusion that suffering is something you do to yourself.

Like you are right now.

I don't know enough about Buddhism to say what its "whole point" is, but...

I hope it doesn't say that our suffering is just our own damn fault, and we can make it go away by an attitude adjustment.

Psychiatry pushes that fucking nonsense. As if people willingly produce their own suffering and can turn it on or off like flicking a light switch. Suffering is a fundamental element of human existence, which is what Buddhism teaches.

[GrandizerII]

Ok, sure, here's the Wiki link on antina...

Nah, on second thought, you're a very special person with a very unique view that no one has ever thought of before, please ignore.

Seriously, there are dozens of philosophers who have had the same thought and have actually managed to create some good arguments in favour of  it. David Benatar and Arthur Schopenhauer are probably the best examples, possibly the Buddha. Ahri might be onto something, but doesn't seem terribly capable of expressing it in a way that doesn't sound like, well, a mentally ill shitposter. And, yes, I have mental illnesses, but at least I can apply some degree of intellectual rigor to the question.

Maybe I could qualify the premise, say it's not automatically a bad thing, but that it does become one when one decides to bring a child into the world recklessly, without knowing how to care for it and/or knowing that you're going to doom it to a bad life with little chance of rising above it all and/or if you're not going to be prepared to prioritise its well-being over yours. Or I could point out that the experiences of the last decade or two are making bringing new life into the world an option less morally sound (say, that there's a vanishingly small window of time before our chances to do anything about global warming run out and that it's become blindingly obvious that we're going to miss the mark. Or, Hell, the fact that we've been dealing with a deadly virus for two years and people are bitterly divided about whether we should do anything about it.)

I think we can all agree that there are parents out there who shouldn't have had kids at all because of the trauma they inflict on them.

As for anti-natalism per se, I'm not sure what to think regarding the argument itself. I also don't think it's automatically bad to bring forth kids into this world. Nevertheless, it has been my observation that often times people want to have kids for selfish reasons, perhaps to impress their elders/relatives, to prove to themselves that they're now "adult enough", or because they want someone they can train to become the next math genius or best athlete ever (basically to have someone they can "legally" control for their own satisfaction). Of course, other times, people have kids because it's tradition, it's one of those milestones in life to be accomplished, and/or due to societal pressure.

From an individual perspective, especially (as you say) in this day and age, it's hard to think of a good reason to have kids, though I'm not at all against people having kids in general, even if they do it for selfish reasons (because one can still be a good parent nevertheless despite the reason they wanted to have kids). From a societal perspective, on the other hand, I can definitely see the benefits (in some settings, I mean) and would almost argue that it would be unethical not to have kids as a result.

Then again, the anti-natalist would counter this by rhetorically asking the question why humankind needs to progress at all anyway (which Ahri pretty much argued earlier in this thread). And once again, I find it's difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. Maybe there isn't any good answer, but we're here anyway and we have kids and like having them, so that's that.

ETA: Or maybe there is at least one (I think). If people stopped having kids, then at some point there would be no young people to take care of the elderly in their last years of living. But again, doesn't sound very compelling on its own as a counter.

[Ahriman]

Life is so utterly pointless that you might as well spend as much time seeking pleasure as possible. I've resolved to do a certain activity (you do while alone......you know) with greater frequency, and I'm playing with the idea of spending my very limited funds on CBD and Delta 8 products in the near future. On a more "wholesome pleasure" note, I have just started writing a journal, with today being the first entry.

[Belacqua]

Then again, the anti-natalist would counter this by rhetorically asking the question why humankind needs to progress at all anyway (which Ahri pretty much argued earlier in this thread). And once again, I find it's difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. Maybe there isn't any good answer, but we're here anyway and we have kids and like having them, so that's that.

I think we're bumping up against a very common conviction among atheists: that life has no intrinsic meaning, and that we each give our lives the meaning we choose. 

But then if someone chooses not to choose a meaning, I don't see how we can scold that, or say that he's failing in some duty. And if he points out that other people's meanings are just things that they've chosen, and not something objectively real, and that such choices are not mandatory, then consistency demands that we agree. 

ETA: Or maybe there is at least one (I think). If people stopped having kids, then at some point there would be no young people to take care of the elderly in their last years of living. But again, doesn't sound very compelling on its own as a counter.

Periodically the Japanese government gets worried that the population is declining and there aren't enough young people paying social security to support all the old people. Then they try to urge women to have babies, and say it's some kind of national duty.

At the same time, they want women in the work force, and fail to provide sufficient practical incentives, like child care for working people. 

This is the consumerist ideology: society is set up to make us behave one way, but if we behave that way we are bad and it's our own fault.

[Ahriman]

But then if someone chooses not to choose a meaning, I don't see how we can scold that, or say that he's failing in some duty. And if he points out that other people's meanings are just things that they've chosen, and not something objectively real, and that such choices are not mandatory, then consistency demands that we agree. 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Belacqua]

But then if someone chooses not to choose a meaning, I don't see how we can scold that, or say that he's failing in some duty. And if he points out that other people's meanings are just things that they've chosen, and not something objectively real, and that such choices are not mandatory, then consistency demands that we agree. 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm 62 years old, so if I devoted myself to the Delta 8 and porn lifestyle I would feel physically terrible every day. I need that brisk-walk-in-fresh-air habit to feel even slightly human. (YMMV, as they say.)

Maybe that's how I chose, or how fate chose for me: certain things let me feel less yucky than others.

[Aegon]

Uh dude the whole point of Buddhism is that you eventually come to the conclusion that suffering is something you do to yourself.

Like you are right now.

I don't know enough about Buddhism to say what its "whole point" is, but...

I hope it doesn't say that our suffering is just our own damn fault, and we can make it go away by an attitude adjustment.

Definitely not that simplistic, no.

[Rev. Rye]

Shit Rev, that might be missing the larger question. Why not smoke as much as you want…drink as much as you want…do what you want - aaaaand get any orgasms in with a good friend?

Maybe because anti-depressants don't play nice with booze?