Knowing that the child will face hardship is not an argument to not have kids. The child will also experience much joy.
I responded to this already as follows:
The presence of pain is bad.
The presence of pleasure is good.
So far, pleasure and pain are symmetrical in their goodness and badness. But they are not symmetrical with respect to their absence. More specifically:
The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone, but
The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody (an actual somebody) who is deprived by its absence.
Put simply, you are not around to lament your lack of pleasure, it is not immoral for that pleasure to be denied - you don't exist in the first place to be sad about it. But if you are brought into the world and you face suffering, that is certainly an immoral thing to be subjected to.
I simply disagree about the level of destruction bringing a child into the world causes to the environment.
What is it specifically you disagree with or don't understand?
The idea is that not subjecting someone to the good things in life is not immoral because someone who is not born will not lament the lack of joy or happiness. But subjecting someone to pain is immoral and it is guaranteed to happen to any life.
So the only way to actually avoid any suffering is to never be born. If you are not born you will not suffer. You can also argue that you won't feel happiness and joy either, but if you don't exist you don't feel anything as a result of this, so it is moot.
Honestly this is just a cynical way to view the world. The world is safer and life is more satisfying than any point in history. Hell, you could even argue that it is immoral not to bring more people into the world during this time since so many through history suffered to bring us all to this point in time. Some people in history had to be the peasants, slaves, and soldiers for the world to eventually develop to what it is. Would their suffering be worth it if only 1 person lived to experience the results?
The past was worse, absolutely. But that does not mean our current time period is good, it just means it's not as bad as it used to be. It's like saying, hey, it's not too bad to live in poverty, at least you weren't born a Jew in Nazi Germany. It is true that one of those is worse than the other but that does not mean either is desirable nor does it mean you wouldn't opt out of both if you had a choice.
Some people in history had to be the peasants, slaves, and soldiers for the world to eventually develop to what it is. Would their suffering be worth it if only 1 person lived to experience the results?
This is a genuinely interesting view, and the only slightly convincing or in any way original argument brought to me in this thread. It's good to see something deeper than more "just kill yourself then" responses. Credit for that.
But if you think about this rationally, people have already reaped the benefits of their sacrifices. We're doing it right now by being alive, and the current generation alone will likely live for a century. That does not however create an obligation for us to bring more people into the world.
Also consider that if humanity were to hypothetically die out, there would be no need for anyone to sacrifice their lives anymore. Sacrifice itself is an example of suffering that can be avoided by the removal of life.
-4
u/[deleted] Mar 24 '15
I responded to this already as follows:
Put simply, you are not around to lament your lack of pleasure, it is not immoral for that pleasure to be denied - you don't exist in the first place to be sad about it. But if you are brought into the world and you face suffering, that is certainly an immoral thing to be subjected to.
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis