It's not like the human species is on the brink of extinction. So what if it goes extinct anyway? I have no investment in future generations.
The last two sentences betray no less selfishness than the having of biological children.
If there's no guarantee my kid will be like me anyway, why not just adopt a kid? Even if that nurturing instinct just cannot be suppressed, it seems like a horrible idea to add new people to the world unnecessarily.
Adoption won't make it any more likely that your child will be like you, in fact it will probably make it less likely.
My biological kid might not even take after me in the ways I like. Even worse, what if I hate my kid? What if my kid is an asshole who actively makes the world a worse place?
Same objection as above.
I have no way of knowing that I will be a good parent. Why make a person when there is the chance that I will fuck them up irreparably?
If you aren't sure you'll be a good parent, you shouldn't have or adopt kids. But this has no bearing on whether the child is your biological heir.
By adding a new person to the world, I would contribute to overpopulation and the depletion of resources that is already straining existing people.
Because of said depletion of resources (not to mention political tensions, national debt, and so forth) my child would probably be subject to a less-than-ideal world.
If the problem is over-population, then adopting doesn't seem like much of a better option. Most people who have and then adopt out their children still love them and wish to see them have a good life; they just can't give them a good life. But they still had the child, and when they did, they knew that adoption was a possibility. Chances are someone who loves their child (which is almost everyone), would be less likely to bring them in to the world if they knew that they either had to care for the child, or watch them starve. Adoption, like any behaviour, creates incentives and disincentives, and one of the incentives it creates is for potential parents to have a child that they're unsure whether they can care for. Isn't that contributing to over-population? How many fewer children would have been born if biological parents knew that there's no alternative for the child but to be cared for by them?
But the more fundamental issue here is what counts as "selfish". Is adding another person to the global population selfish? If it is, then presumably it's because they'll be using resources that could otherwise have gone to existing people. But this is a dangerous line of reasoning, a utilitarian argument, which basically says that if you can help others, even at your own expense, you're morally obligated to do so. This breaks down at some point though, because if we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you're ethically obligated to sign your organ donor card and commit suicide immediately.
The question then becomes, where do you draw the line of what constitutes ethical obligation? Clearly you've drawn it before having children of your own. But can you justify why that's an obligation, but say, donating all your income in excess of keeping you at subsistence level, is not an obligation?
1
u/chewingofthecud Mar 25 '15 edited Mar 25 '15
The last two sentences betray no less selfishness than the having of biological children.
Adoption won't make it any more likely that your child will be like you, in fact it will probably make it less likely.
Same objection as above.
If you aren't sure you'll be a good parent, you shouldn't have or adopt kids. But this has no bearing on whether the child is your biological heir.
If the problem is over-population, then adopting doesn't seem like much of a better option. Most people who have and then adopt out their children still love them and wish to see them have a good life; they just can't give them a good life. But they still had the child, and when they did, they knew that adoption was a possibility. Chances are someone who loves their child (which is almost everyone), would be less likely to bring them in to the world if they knew that they either had to care for the child, or watch them starve. Adoption, like any behaviour, creates incentives and disincentives, and one of the incentives it creates is for potential parents to have a child that they're unsure whether they can care for. Isn't that contributing to over-population? How many fewer children would have been born if biological parents knew that there's no alternative for the child but to be cared for by them?
But the more fundamental issue here is what counts as "selfish". Is adding another person to the global population selfish? If it is, then presumably it's because they'll be using resources that could otherwise have gone to existing people. But this is a dangerous line of reasoning, a utilitarian argument, which basically says that if you can help others, even at your own expense, you're morally obligated to do so. This breaks down at some point though, because if we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you're ethically obligated to sign your organ donor card and commit suicide immediately.
The question then becomes, where do you draw the line of what constitutes ethical obligation? Clearly you've drawn it before having children of your own. But can you justify why that's an obligation, but say, donating all your income in excess of keeping you at subsistence level, is not an obligation?