Procreation: Reasons for?

@William,

Quote:

It seems to me that anyone who does so has not really thought it through, or if they have, and still have a child, they have acted selfishly. A person who does not exist feels no pain of any sort, and does not know that they do not exist. Therefore, as well as feeling no pain, nor are they roaming around the realm of non-existence, pining to exist. They are in blissful oblivion, so they are not being deprived of anything; they are not being shown any of the good things in life and not allowed them.

There is a seemingly innate presumption (or is it societal?) that it is desirable to have been born, but this seems to be highly questionable at best. It is surely not in a hypothetical person's best interests to be born, as they will have to face many unpleasant things, have misfortune befall them, in the majority of cases spend pretty much their whole life trapped as essentially a slave, and, in all cases die.

You claimed that people had not thought it through, maybe you have not thought it through.

A person who doesn't exist is not a person and not in blissful oblivion... of course there is a presumption that it is better to have been born, it is our only experience, our only experience is by default better than our not experience, because we experienced it. This is not to say we don't have bad experiences, but something is better than nothing, even if it is simply our natural life preservation insticts being rationalized.

It is not overcomplicating anything, if you are going to make an argument for responsible choice you have to make sure choice is a viable model as it pertains to the OP. Rational Responsible etc.., has no bearing if there really is no choice. You are suggesting fatalism if it is necessarily bad, it it fatalistically bad. If it can be no other way than bad it is fatalistically bad. If it can be no other way our agency as rational responsible etc... is negated. If we have no agency there, we have no agency anywhere.

Agency is required for value action such as rational and responsible. One cannot judge what is rational and what is responsible in a true sense without it. Otherwise rational and responsible are simply labels on a cline of fated actions and attitudes.

The science of sperm and egg is not in dispute. If there is an ultimate causal event in the universe, all subsequent events stem from it and follow whatever universal rules the original event was subject to. All events in the universe are then caused and agency is an illusion, hence fatalism.

In order to have agency there must be something outside the operating laws of the universe, which would require some other state of being aside from what we perceive. It is not agency if it is predetermined by the original cause and its operational laws. So what you see as responisble action is simply an action with no value one way or the other. Bringing a life into the world is neither selfish nor unslefish, it is just an action.

Within the realm of seeming practicallity, fine use responsible birth control, but that was not the OP, and practical is not necessarily how philosophy works.

As for Sartre he is not complicated he is writing in a specific style that suits what he has to say and his message. To be compared is flattering.

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

The notion of fatalism excluding agency and vice versa is a gross simplification of agency in itself. Agency, true agency is not necessarily in contradiction with fatalism -- if that fatalism in itself is a product of agency (which I would argue it indeed is); e.g. agency and fatalism are merely the inverse and obverse of the same fabric which consists of the actual pre-action.

To elaborate: There is not a simple two-tiered structure -- a contradictory one, of agency and fatalism, but rather all lead from one to the other; where agency does not reign, fatalism reigns, and where agency has established its legacy, fatalism comes and takes its place. It is irrelevant whether we speak here about "True" agency and "True" fatalism, since a discussion on any would automatically preclude it as having it been subject to its other; e.g. a discussion on whether Agency exists or not would simply be in itself an expression of agency in itself, e.g. the agency to decide about and of said agency. Of course it may be perceived in hindsight as being subject to Fatalism, and as such, we are bound to discuss this, as such a discussion was predetermined, but nevertheless the mere discussion of such is in itself a sensation of a nascent agency and vice versa.

Thus, in our original posts, which conflates the two issues, the question itself is an expression of our asserted fatalism within agency, and thus our ambivalence towards this issue in itself. The question is in itself at once advocating that bringing a child into this world is selfish, as the world would be bad, but on the other hand giving us a choice in the matter, to be selfish or not - this choice, e.g. whether to be selfish or not is also determining the actual answer of whether the world will be bad for the child. The notion of the experiential value judgment too, does not necessarily have effect here, as such judgments are themselves dependent on whether agency is indeed at all existent in the first place. In other words, the world being fatalistically bad or not entirely depends on whether, qua agent, the one having a child is doing so for self-perceived selfish reasons; but even that.. the selfish reason in itself, may be fatalistically determined, and as such, it is only the agency in itself, in the level below the inevitable fatalism of the world being bad, which is at stake. is such an act selfish? does it require to assert agency over the superior fatalism?

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

Life is great. This is my son -- does this child look like he regrets being born?

Should I bemoan my selfishness for giving a child these moments of unabated joy, rather than nonexistence?

And I should add that the joy of being a parent makes all the other trials of life worth it.

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs034.snc1/4322_1117200620924_1554244513_30276537_2316378_n.jpg

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs034.snc1/4322_1117200940932_1554244513_30276545_4605749_n.jpg

2 Replies

@Aedes,

This discussion/the OP's question, is inextricably tied to one's beliefs on a pre-earthly existence, the concept of a 'spirit' and so on. But that's another 'untangleable' ball of yarn, so leaving that alone for now... An argument can be made that all things people do can be tied - in one way or another - to "selfishness". So the notion that having children might be selfish act is somewhat meaningless.

But it also looks like this discussion wanders into the "Is it Right?"-territory. While I tend towards something's effects in deciding this, the nature of this issue emphasizes intent even moreso. What I think we're left with is:

Since the effects could lean greatly towards any ideal of good or bad, and since a potential parent can't know this beforehand; again, the question can't be answered.

Someone's intent isn't well-known by others, and perhaps even less by the person doing the deciding (do we consciously-realize all the "why" influences in anything we do?), leading us again to a dead end.

Are we wanting to justify a desire to NOT have children? If so, let it go; you need no justification. If you don't want them, don't have them. And since you can know neither the effects or the intents of others you really can't much judge others. Your choice needs no justification; hell, I'd call it a Right of Humanity to make this decision for oneself.

Thanks

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;78753 wrote:

Life is great. This is my son -- does this child look like he regrets being born?

He's young, give him time!

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78770 wrote:

He's young, give him time!

What do you mean?
It's still not a good enough reason to not have a child, yes? no?

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Caroline;78783 wrote:

What do you mean?
It's still not a good enough reason to not have a child, yes? no?

What I mean is he is plainly a toddler. Therefore, he has neither developed the cognitive nor emotional capacity to feel regret, FAR less express it.

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

Yes they are so innocent at that age too. I have to admit that seeing Aedes picture make me broody, toddlers are very beautiful at that age.

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78791 wrote:

What I mean is he is plainly a toddler. Therefore, he has neither developed the cognitive nor emotional capacity to feel regret, FAR less express it.

I am 34 years old. I have no regret at all -- and if I DID have any regret, the experience of having this child completely conquers such regret. I go home from a rough day at work and looking at him it's all ok again.

If he grows up as loved as I have been, and if he has a child the likes of himself, if he finds people and a lifestyle that sustain and nourish his enjoyment of life, he will never regret having been born either.

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78686 wrote:

Again, over-complicated. This is like Sartre, circa Being & Nothingness, but arguing the opposite.

Hi,

But yes, you are suggesting that life (I would call this consciousness), as presented by materialism and realism is absurd (meaningless), and I would agree, which is why I long ago dropped this line of thought.

To equate the selfish act of giving life to the selfish act of purchasing a new car is exactly where materialism and science brings you. We are merely dealing with a computer - aren't we? So, I can understand your line of thinking and agree that it is the natural conclusion based upon where you start.

But suppose the life (consciousness) does not die. Suppose it carries on forever, experimenting, learning through pain, succeeded and thereby having moments of happiness, and then retaining memory so that it can continue to create? Then maybe things start making sense to one's own mind. But first, it is necessary to give up the arbitrary notion of the primacy of the material (the physical body, computers, etc.) over the immaterial - e.g. consciousness, emotions, inherited characteristics, innate capabilities, observation, light, etc. I personally place the primacy of the immaterial over the material, and it leads me to a more relaxed perspective about life - mine and my children and my friends.

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;78809 wrote:

you are suggesting that life (I would call this consciousness), as presented by materialism and realism is absurd (meaningless)

Neither materialism nor realism should suggest that life is "absurd" or "devoid of meaning". Those are metaphysical determinations, not materialistic ones. Sartre and Camus were not speaking as scientists. If life has an intrinsic meaning, then a materialistic examination will not be able to find it. But what science COULD do is determine that most people on this planet 1) have meaningful things in their own lives and 2) do not regret having been born -- and if this is true, then it only supports the existentialist exhortation that we find meaning for ourselves.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;78813 wrote:

Neither materialism nor realism should suggest that life is "absurd" or "devoid of meaning". Those are metaphysical determinations, not materialistic ones. Sartre and Camus were not speaking as scientists. If life has an intrinsic meaning, then a materialistic examination will not be able to find it. But what science COULD do is determine that most people on this planet 1) have meaningful things in their own lives and 2) do not regret having been born -- and if this is true, then it only supports the existentialist exhortation that we find meaning for ourselves.

Materialistic ideas - that equates computers to human consciousness, that dismisses the non-physical, and berates those who have found meaning and evidence of that meaning beyond their physical body - have consequences on the mind that embraces these ideas, in the physical, mental, and spiritual domains. The question that started this thread is but one example.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;78815 wrote:

Materialistic ideas - that equates computers to human consciousness, that dismisses the non-physical, and berates those who have found meaning and evidence of that meaning beyond their physical body...

You're the only one doing the dismissing and berating here.

Equating a computer to human consciousness neglects BOTH materialistic and non-materialistic differences that are completely critical to holistically understanding the two. So such an exercise is not a unique dismissal of the non-physical. It's also a dismissal of the banally obvious differences between a computer and a human.

Materialism can speak only about whether nonmaterial assertions are demonstrable or not. It has nothing to do with whether life is worth living, one way or the other.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;78809 wrote:

Hi,

But yes, you are suggesting that life (I would call this consciousness), as presented by materialism and realism is absurd (meaningless), and I would agree, which is why I long ago dropped this line of thought.

To equate the selfish act of giving life to the selfish act of purchasing a new car is exactly where materialism and science brings you. We are merely dealing with a computer - aren't we? So, I can understand your line of thinking and agree that it is the natural conclusion based upon where you start.

But suppose the life (consciousness) does not die. Suppose it carries on forever, experimenting, learning through pain, succeeded and thereby having moments of happiness, and then retaining memory so that it can continue to create? Then maybe things start making sense to one's own mind. But first, it is necessary to give up the arbitrary notion of the primacy of the material (the physical body, computers, etc.) over the immaterial - e.g. consciousness, emotions, inherited characteristics, innate capabilities, observation, light, etc. I personally place the primacy of the immaterial over the material, and it leads me to a more relaxed perspective about life - mine and my children and my friends.

Rich

Hmmm. That's a BIIIIIIG suppose you're asking of me there, Rich. That could well all be a load of garbage, couldn't it? And again, it delves into the superstitious/religious angle which I personally give zero credence to. With that in mind, it would make no sense for me to factor that sort of consideration into my thinking.

As far as your life/car argument goes, though, I think you misunderstand; I agree with you, in a way. A person is CLEARLY not the same as a car, or indeed any other kind of consumer good, or in fact, any other kind of animal on earth, as we alone bear the burden of consciousness, yet I see all the time people having children "because they want to", and they are clearly rattled by, and, resultantly, unwilling to listen to, my arguments against.

"Because I want to" is a perfectly acceptable argument for buying a car; the car doesn't know any better, it can't feel, but when it is applied wholesale to a person, I assert that it is not acceptable, and that it is selfish, all about enhancing their own life. The prospective breeder MUST consider the being which he/she/they intend to create first and foremost, over and above their own. I think that in the majority of cases, they do not.

4 Replies

@gojo1978,

Although, I disagree with the OP, this has been one of the most entertaining discussions here in quite a while. Thx Gojo and everyone.

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78824 wrote:

Hmmm. That's a BIIIIIIG suppose you're asking of me there, Rich.

Hi thre gojo,

I am not asking you of anything. I am suggesting that materialism inevitably leads to the type of questions that you are asking. It is not necessary to go this route, but if one chooses to do so, then they will have to be satisfied with the limits of materialism, which for me is not only too limiting but entirely unsatisfying in describing the life that I am observing.

Quote:

A person is CLEARLY not the same as a car, or indeed any other kind of consumer good, or in fact, any other kind of animal on earth, as we alone bear the burden of consciousness ..

The moment consciousness is brought into discussion, then we have a metaphysical discussion which can go in many different directions depending upon how one views consciousness.

Quote:

, yet I see all the time people having children "because they want to", and they are clearly rattled by, and, resultantly, unwilling to listen to, my arguments against.

There is this urge in many human beings to have children. I think most people would have difficulty explaining this urge. I am sure the feelings are quite different between different people.

My own metaphysics allows for a partnership between the souls of the parents and the souls of the children, which I do not consider a selfish act. But to get to this point is a long journey. For me, it began with an acknowledgment of the primacy of the non-material - e.g. consciousness.

Quote:

"Because I want to" is a perfectly acceptable argument for buying a car; the car doesn't know any better, it can't feel, but when it is applied wholesale to a person, I assert that it is not acceptable, and that it is selfish, all about enhancing their own life. The prospective breeder MUST consider the being which he/she/they intend to create first and foremost, over and above their own. I think that in the majority of cases, they do not.

If you view parents (or potential parents) as breeders you do paint yourself in a metaphysical corner. But this is a corner that you painted yourself into. However, there are many ways out of this corner, but you do have to change your perspective so that you can bring yourself into a different space. The moment you begin to contemplate the nature of immateriality the direction changes.

I remember reading The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Rhodes, where I first was introduced to the immateriality of elementary particles (quantum waves), and how it help create a whole new line of thinking for myself.

Everyone's journey, I believe is different, but I do think we are free to choose the paths that we wish to explore.

Rich

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78824 wrote:

"Because I want to" is a perfectly acceptable argument for buying a car; the car doesn't know any better, it can't feel, but when it is applied wholesale to a person, I assert that it is not acceptable, and that it is selfish, all about enhancing their own life. The prospective breeder MUST consider the being which he/she/they intend to create first and foremost, over and above their own. I think that in the majority of cases, they do not.

And how are they able to consider the being in question? 'They' cannot go off making assumptions.

Just as it is not the job of the person walking by a beggar to 'know' what the beggar is going to use the money for, it is not the couple's job to consider how their newborn will feel about the world (Not saying one shouldn't feel curious of course, just saying it is too narrow-minded a pragmatic philosophy to act upon such thoughts).

It is arrogant to bring about a child into this world and assume that child will have a similar perspective of the world as the parents. It is equally as arrogant to assume there ought to be congruency. The "evil of this world" is not an objective fact, it is simply your perspective. How can one bring a child into this world and assume they will find the world to be equally as evil?

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

LOL holiday, maybe the child will turn out to be the Evil of the world. Ya never know.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;78843 wrote:

And how are they able to consider the being in question? 'They' cannot go off making assumptions.

Just as it is not the job of the person walking by a beggar to 'know' what the beggar is going to use the money for, it is not the couple's job to consider how their newborn will feel about the world (Not saying one shouldn't feel curious of course, just saying it is too narrow-minded a pragmatic philosophy to act upon such thoughts).

It is arrogant to bring about a child into this world and assume that child will have a similar perspective of the world as the parents. It is equally as arrogant to assume there ought to be congruency. The "evil of this world" is not an objective fact, it is simply your perspective. How can one bring a child into this world and assume they will find the world to be equally as evil?

If a person thinks that the world was "evil", but still chooses to cast a child into that maelstrom, how can we conclude anything other than that they don't give a toss about the welfare of said child?

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78824 wrote:

Hmmm. That's a BIIIIIIG suppose you're asking of me there, Rich. That could well all be a load of garbage, couldn't it? And again, it delves into the superstitious/religious angle which I personally give zero credence to. With that in mind, it would make no sense for me to factor that sort of consideration into my thinking.

Gojo, when I first observed your OP, I must admit, from my perception, it was coming from an extremely "depressed" individual and I efforted to offer my opinion in hopes that would offer a sense of solace, but was summarily dismissed in that I insulted you're perceived intelligence and graciouslly bowed out. Call me tenacious for it is not my nature to give up so easily. Hence this post and I hope it will not offend you, though in all probability it will considering the "corner" you have painted yourself into, as Rich noted of which I agree. You have that right and I will not argue that. It is your prerogative.

I am a positive sort who will effort to make lemonade out of the lemons life throws at me. I only engage with another when "I think" I can offer a positive thought to their negative mind set and a reward that can be gathered out of that frame of mind. Sometimes I am successful and sometimes I fail; nevertheless it is what I effort to do and it is for selfish reasons. I can't tolerate being around a "negative person" so rather than totally disgard them, I try to find a way in which we can become friends so I don't have to endeavor to tolerate their negativity. Of course their are two types of friendship; those that can be defined as "misery loves company" and those who are the "lemon/lemonade" bunch. Ha.

What concerns me here is not so much your mind set as it relates to you personally; but the influence it has on the naive and confused who are looking for answers as I think about what it is you might offer and it bothers me. I can't help it, but it does. What good can come form it? To me it only spreads negativity that can be defined as insult to injury as it enhances and promotes a defeatist nature we don't need any more of in this world. We don't need anymore "rotten apples"! Now the lemon we can do something with, but there is not a hell of a lot we can do with a rotten apple. All we can do is separate it from the others so they don't become infected. Just let it die, not so much physically, but mentally and hope foster "new growth" that will bring about a "new apple" to be added to the bunch.

There are a lot of rotton apples out there and we find ways to expunge them from our midst for it is that new growth we encourage, not the contamination of such antagonisms because they have nothing to offer that has not already been offered over and over again and this "new bunch" has become wise to it's rhetoric as you encourage your affinity to non-existence vs. existence which leads us to assume you have no idea of what you are talking about unless you can enlighten us as to what "non-existence" is.

Now personally, I like "being". Yep, no doubt about it, though I have no idea of what "not to be" is. All I can gather from you is the satisfaction you might find if we all aspired to adhere to your notions and consciously attempted mass suicide en masse to find true happiness. It is my belef we have already been there and we "instinctively" like this better. Granted it is not perfected, but we innately feel it beats not existing.

Now as you stated not to allow any "religious" dogma to intercede in your thread, I can't help but think of those "disallusioned" christians who are actually looking expectantly to the "end of the world" who are victims of an odd lot of so called fanatic's who preach this nonsense, who might find wisdom in your words. Tommy rot! As I said there are lot of rotton apple's out there. And the misenterpretations of what Christ said is their claim to fame, so to speak.

I have an enormous amount of faith in my fellow human beings and what they will discover once they unite for the common good for all. That will happen. We are just young, but we have far to go and are entitled to stumble a little at first before we can walk. Now is the broad sense we are mere infants and all that has occurred in our "existence" could be just a mild irritation that was expected in lieu of the granduer of what is to come, death only being a part of that growth process.

It is not my intent to anger you or quarrel with you; only offer my thoughts and feelings in hopes that we will find a common ground as it should be in all discourse free of argument. I hoped this helped you understand me a little better as I hope to understand you. Then we can both benefit. IMMHO.

William

As always Mods, please do as you will if I am out of line. Thanks.

2 Replies

Procreation: Reasons for?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know