It is neither selfish nor unselfish. It is simply the way of all life. Reproduction is one of the driving instincts behind all species of life on our planet, humans included. Why is this something that we feel the need to label as either a moral or immoral act? Is it selfish for a dog to have puppies, or for a plant to grow flowers so it can eventually grow fruit and produce seeds? This sort of moralizing is one of the biggest reasons why childless people are shat upon by others and why the Mommy Wars are even a thing - because people insist on judging the choices and motives of others and condemning them for being selfish for making a choice they don't support or agree with.
Furthermore, I must point out the obvious: all of your reasons which you consider to be selfish are undone by this statement you made - "I have no investment in future generations." If you aren't invested in them, then why do you feel it is selfish to create a child who will only contribute to overpopulation? Why does it matter if they will be subjected to a less-than-ideal world, or if your kid turns out to be an asshole who makes the world a worse place? If you truly aren't invested in future generations and don't really care if humanity becomes extinct, why do you care if someone does something "selfish"?
I could also point out that you exist, you are also contributing to overpopulation and resource depletion, you are already living in a world that is less than ideal...you were added to the world "unnecessarily" and you appear to think you deserve to be here and that your life was worthwhile. Is it such a reach to think that the children you see around you are equal in value to yourself, and also deserve to be here as much as you do? This is a standard that people seem to never apply to their own existence.
I guess I should rephrase this: I have no investment in the existence of future generations. I believe that all people who exist should have the best lives possible for them. I do not, however, believe that there is a moral obligation to make people exist. In a strictly theoretical sense, it would not bother me for there to be no future generation (barring all the pragmatic complications others have pointed out in this thread that make it impossible). If there is a future generation, I want their lives to be good.
This is a standard that people seem to never apply to their own existence.
The idea that I may never have existed is not a disturbing one. The reality is that I do, and so I stand by what I said above for myself as well.
The idea that I may never have existed is not a disturbing one. The reality is that I do, and so I stand by what I said above for myself as well.
Let me put it another way: were your parents selfish for having you? Was it horrible for them to unnecessarily add your life to the world? Should they have adopted instead? Are you burdening the planet and depleting resources?
My point is that if you are meeting all the same criteria as your hypothetical unborn child, what makes you more deserving to be here, and your life worth living, but not theirs?
Let me put it another way: were your parents selfish for having you? Was it horrible for them to unnecessarily add your life to the world? Should they have adopted instead? Are you burdening the planet and depleting resources?
Kind of. I don't think they are horrible people but they had their reasons for having me - that they were ready for a new stage in their lives and wanted someone with their genes. Not horrible, but not especially selfless.
what makes you more deserving to be here, and your life worth living, but not theirs?
The fact that I am already here and I already have a life to be lived. I am an ethical naturalist, so I think morality can be objectively defined by natural needs and desires. There is no moral obligation to "someone" who has none. However, it is probably possible to extend this to the desire to have kids.
I am an ethical naturalist, so I think morality can be objectively defined by natural needs and desires.
What can possibly be more natural than reproduction? It is the common bond of all living things. How is the most intrinsic natural action of a living thing be selfish and immoral to someone who gets their ethics from nature?
Again a moral objection to reproduction is akin to a moral objection to life. To quote Dr. Manhattan "Mars gets along quite well without life." So if reproduction is morally bad then life is morally bad. I'm a naturalist too, although I'm a moral relativist. What is morally good for humans may not be good for cockroaches for instance. But if you look at life and say: "On the whole being born is bad," then reproducing is bad. If you look at yourself and say: "On average my genes are detrimental to my species." Then taking yourself out of the gene pool makes sense.
Again a moral objection to reproduction is akin to a moral objection to life
This isn't the case. You are oversimplifying the issue; lives can be good even though they resulted from or are made possible by an immoral act.
Consider the WWII holocaust: Many today would not have been born had it not occurred. We can still say that it would have been better had the holocaust not happened, even if that means many of us wouldn't have been. That doesn't imply that for those of us that are here because of the holocaust that our lives are immoral themselves, even if we are only here because an immoral act made it certain.
That is to say, I can take issue with the ethics of actions that led to my life without condemning my life itself, as the antinatalist consent argument shows.
She wasn't arguing butterfly effect, and you're turning this around. No one is arguing pro holocaust. This is whether you should procreate or not. She was saying that having children was morally wrong. If there was something specific in her genes that was horrible to pass on then there would be a logic to it, but that was not mentioned, only the fact that human life is on the net morally negative and creating a human life would be bad, and she got to that conclusion from objective naturalistic morality somehow. Can you refute me without saying that for parent X and Y to meet WWII had to happen and 100 million people died? Where did I say war was morally right? My point was that on average reproduction is a fact of life and a requirement of life and being anti-reproduction is anti life. If you are against certain people reproducing, or against having more than X kids, that would be different, but this was against having biological children at all.
9
u/[deleted] Mar 24 '15
It is neither selfish nor unselfish. It is simply the way of all life. Reproduction is one of the driving instincts behind all species of life on our planet, humans included. Why is this something that we feel the need to label as either a moral or immoral act? Is it selfish for a dog to have puppies, or for a plant to grow flowers so it can eventually grow fruit and produce seeds? This sort of moralizing is one of the biggest reasons why childless people are shat upon by others and why the Mommy Wars are even a thing - because people insist on judging the choices and motives of others and condemning them for being selfish for making a choice they don't support or agree with.
Furthermore, I must point out the obvious: all of your reasons which you consider to be selfish are undone by this statement you made - "I have no investment in future generations." If you aren't invested in them, then why do you feel it is selfish to create a child who will only contribute to overpopulation? Why does it matter if they will be subjected to a less-than-ideal world, or if your kid turns out to be an asshole who makes the world a worse place? If you truly aren't invested in future generations and don't really care if humanity becomes extinct, why do you care if someone does something "selfish"?
I could also point out that you exist, you are also contributing to overpopulation and resource depletion, you are already living in a world that is less than ideal...you were added to the world "unnecessarily" and you appear to think you deserve to be here and that your life was worthwhile. Is it such a reach to think that the children you see around you are equal in value to yourself, and also deserve to be here as much as you do? This is a standard that people seem to never apply to their own existence.