Is having children a justifiable act anymore?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is having children a justifiable act anymore?

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Who exactly are we supposed to justify this to?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 20:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 20:17

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

You don't need another person around in order to decide whether a thing is just or not, but I would suggest that in this instance "your prospective kid" would be a good start.

And if my prospective kid wants to be born?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 21:28

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

boner confessor posted:

something which doesn't exist doesn't want anything op

By that same logic I don't need to justify anything to them either.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 21:42

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Is mandatory sterilization ethical as well?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 23:45

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

In a vacuum, arguably, but not as it's overwhelmingly practiced. And trying it species-wide would probably not actually be achievable.

What's your reasoning that justifies violating people's bodily autonomy against their will?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 03:42

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

That procreation produces magnitudes more suffering than violation of bodily autonomy. in the same way it's ethical to violate someone's bodily autonomy by arresting them if they show evidence of intent to harm others, it is ethical to do so if they show evidence of intent to create life that will primarily suffer. Bodily autonomy is not inviolable, it is simply desirable to preserve it without a good reason not to.

If you could flip a switch and sterilize the entire planet, it would produce a horrible world, but it would be a very finite amount of horror. A procreating world has far, far more time to endure far, far more horror.

You could also make a somewhat awkward argument that creating life itself is a violation of the bodily autonomy of the created individual, or at least that all subsequent suffering can be traced back to the initiation of that life, incurring a degree of fault at that point, but I would probably not lead with that argument as I don't think it's as strong.

How are you objectively measuring suffering and horror here?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 13:29

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

If I torture you, then wipe your memory, then leave you be for a day, then torture you again, then wipe your memory again, then give you another day, and I do this for years on end, with the net effect being that you are living in intense suffering, but your inability to build an accurate perspective of your life (because of the selective memory alteration) means you don't perceive it that way, are you or are you not suffering? I would take the position that you are, regardless of whether you are aware of it after the fact.

And you could shoot me but, I think, the key point is simply to ensure that I don't procreate, which you could do by shooting me but as I'm not going to anyway that would be a bit superfluous. I'm going to die anyway in a comparatively short amount of time so there's very little need to accelerate that. If you're trying to minimize suffering you would be better served convincing people not to have children rather than going out and shooting people, which does cause rather a lot of suffering because people who already exist have relationships and things, they can be missed, a person who never existed cannot.

Why do you keep talking as if it's an obvious fact that any given life contains more suffering than non-suffering? How could you possibly even begin to quantify that?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 19:26

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

Presumably about as well as you can quantify the opposite. Mostly gut instinct.

Gut instincts are about the worst thing you can use as a basis for justifications.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 19:33

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

If you've got a justification for why the world is mostly nice I'd be interested to hear it.

Well then you'll need to ask somebody who actually made that claim.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 20:22

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

Well it does kind of have to be one or the other.

Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to claim I know or even believe which it is.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 20:41

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

No, but knowing that, or not knowing that, or which is correct, is very pertinent to the question posed in the thread, and any attempt to answer it, I think, must address the question.

Sure, but you can't just assume one or the other because you have a "gut feeling". You should have actual good reasoning if you're going to make that sort of claim.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 20:47

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

As I said, my position is primarily that you really can't know satisfactorily, that there is a prevalent cognitive bias among humans that suggests that it is worse than it seems, whatever that is, and personally it doesn't seem super good to me.

You can disagree with the last bit if you want but the rest, I think, holds. It's not a complete answer but I think it should formulate part of your own personal answer to the question.

Even if it's worse than it seems that doesn't mean that it is still bad enough to justify saying that life isn't worth creating without a more concrete understanding of exactly how much worse it is than the average person might think. This is even granting that people do in fact underestimate how much suffering they experience, which is also an unfounded assertion.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 21:13

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

TomViolence posted:

If I hold someone's hand over a stove but then give them a cookie afterward I'm still an rear end in a top hat no matter how much pleasure that cookie gives them. Similarly, if I force a conscious being into an existence where they inevitably will suffer but also have at best a chance of enjoyment, I'm an rear end in a top hat for the same reason. Pleasure does not cancel out pain, the chance of joy does not counter the certainty of suffering. Propagating sapient life is ethically indefensible.

If I give you a life saving vaccine you will suffer because it requires poking you with a needle. So does this make every doctor on the same moral level as Mengele?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 21:57

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

I've yet to find a case where that is true.

So you're against most forms of medicine?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 22:03

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

TomViolence posted:

Only if they do so without my consent, much in the same way as if you have a child they cannot consent to being born.

EDIT: Also a doctor administering a vaccine is preventing future suffering. Having a child is guaranteeing future suffering.

How do you get an infants consent, exactly?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 22:07

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

TomViolence posted:

You can't. Same way you can't get consent to have sex with a sleeping woman.

So, again, you're putting any medicine practiced on children as morally indefensible. That's a really odd position to take.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 22:18

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

I assume everybody wants to continue living, I simply don't have much faith that they are well founded in that desire. I see little reason not to honour their wishes however, they will die eventually anyway.

And my argument has really nothing to do with consent, my argument is that procreation primarily creates more suffering, regardless of consent. The question of consent is immaterial to my position.

Again, you don't actually have an argument, you just have an unjustified assertion.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 22:33

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

I have an argument based on premises that I cannot prove to you, if you do not accept the premises then you will not agree with the conclusion, that is how arguments work.

Premises you can't prove or demonstrate are faulty premises. Your argument is fallacious from the start.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 22:44

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

I can't take my observed reality out of my head and jam it into yours. This is a limitation of communication. I'm fine with you not accepting the premises for that reason.

Why do you think that you and you alone are free from bias when it comes to accurately assessing the amount of suffering in life?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 23:10

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

I don't, but what I see is all I have to go on.

Why would you go on it at all if you know it's unreliable?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 23:15

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

Because the alternative is bashing my head on something until I lose the ability to think.

I have the capacity to make decisions, I have a limited ability to perceive information to make those decisions, whether or not I procreate is a decision I have to make, I make it with the best information available to me.

You're being hypocritical though. You throw out other people's as being completely useless but won't don't the same for your own even though you admit you suffer from the same problems.

And I'm not talking about your personal decision to procreate, I'm talking about whether it is ethical to stop other people from procreating against their will.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 23:21

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

The issue with that line of thinking is that it makes all ethics meaningless because everyone is going to die.

So? What do you care?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 23:59

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

Why would I not?

Because you don't have anything other than fallacious reasoning to care. Plus, in your perfect world all sapient life would die off and ethics are useless in such a world.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 00:03

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

I mean, from my perspective that is true of everyone whether they believe it or not, it evidently isn't an obstacle for them so I don't see why it should be for me?

I also don't live in a perfect world. Or, don't not live, or whatever. Actually I think my perfect world would be one where I am wrong, and the optimist in me hopes that one day people might live in such a world, but the creation of such a world isn't contingent on you creating as many people as possible right now so you still shouldn't have kids.

You shouldn't have kids. You don't have any valid reasons why anybody else shouldn't have kids.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 00:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 20:17

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

And if maybe if my aunt had worn trousers she would have been my uncle.

Women can wear pants, don't be sexist.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 00:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is having children a justifiable act anymore?