Comment on Any advice appreciated
TheDarkQuark@lemmy.world 2 days agoWhy is it disgraceful and offensive? I mean, you could argue it’s disgraceful if said in a militant manner in an unprompted scenario, but in a general discussion or a debate, why is it considered disgraceful and offensive?
AliOski@feddit.nl 2 days ago
The logic this author is using is “you will by definition traumatize your children, thus you shouldn’t have children”. Not only is this completely flawed logic, even if it were true that by definition you will traumatize your children, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have children, but it also inherently says “you will traumatize your children”. So they are basically telling you that you would be a bad parent. Isn’t that offensive? I understand, every parent has flaws but that’s not the same as “fucking up your children”.
Apart from that, the “disgrace” remark comes from the inherent malevolence of telling people to stop procreating. Telling people to grow old living miserable lonely lives without the innate happiness of having children and being a parent. Having your own children that look up to you and (unless you are indeed a bad parent or if there is something seriously wrong with the child) will love you almost unconditionally. There is no joy better than having children. Telling people to not experience that joy is in my opinion disgraceful.
I can understand the economic realities that sometimes prevent the opportunity of giving your children a happy life, but that’s not what this author/person is talking about.
TheDarkQuark@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I would disagree with your assessment that “telling people to stop procreating” is inherently malevolent, provided it is communicated in a reasonable, rational, and well-meaning manner. I agree that attributing negative value to procreation, and a subject acting on that attribution, could potentially deprive them of the happiness they might otherwise have experienced. However, I believe that bringing a being into existence is not in that being’s best interest. They are not missing out on anything, as they do not exist yet and therefore do not experience anything. So, the only one “losing” here is the parental subject, who may walk into a lonely life (which, in itself, is debatable).
If, however, a parent brings a child into existence, they expose that child to a high likelihood of numerous adversities: depression, anxiety, diabetes, cancer, insomnia, hunger, poverty, asthma, accidents, bereavement, and more. Beyond these, there are also political, economic (as you alluded to), and environmental conditions that make a child’s life significantly harder. Moreover, by bringing a child into existence, you are imposing on them the risk of “growing old living a miserable, lonely life”—in case they cannot have children, or do not want to, perhaps for reasoning similar to mine above.
So, the solution you propose to avoid loneliness is to pass the question onto another being. Would it not be more favorable to not impose so much suffering on another being, just to avoid our own loneliness? If it is loneliness we wish to combat, should we not explore other suffering-free solutions?
As for your equivalence of the poet’s words and “bad parents”, I interpret them slightly differently. The poet says:
This suggests that the act, in itself, stems from ignorance, and not malice. I do not interpret this as “bad parents”, but rather as ignorant beings. Most people do not engage in the moral calculus of bringing a new being into existence; they do not assess the pros and cons of the matter. For most, they do it because it makes them happy, is socially acceptable, and increases the probability of having a safety net in their old age. This doesn’t necessarily make them “bad” in my view, but rather ignorant. I find myself fortunate that I was able to weigh this before procreating. For the few who have thought about this, cannot come up with a counter-argument, and still choose to have children, I would personally consider them immoral and self-centered. For those with strong counter-arguments, I would want to hear them. Perhaps, it will change my mind on the topic as well.
None of my views promotes violence of any kind. I am not taking this stance due to hatred of children (I do not hate them). I simply think that they enter a lose-lose scenario by coming into existence.
^To anyone reading this: I am so sorry for opening up a debate in a shitpost, lol. As for the em-dash, I generated it with the compose key; these are my words, not an LLMs.
AliOski@feddit.nl 1 day ago
My point was not that it is always good for a person to procreate. Every person has their own special circumstances that would each need their own weighing of the situation. I would not tell a 16 year old to procreate, for example, and I would also advice against procreation in the case of a woman close to their menopause. Again however, these advices are already more nuanced and based on the specific circumstances of the individual at hand.
My point is that in a general sense, when talking about the concept of procreation itself, it should not be adviced against. In any case not with such a lack of nuance as in that text. I do not regard the “passing on of the problem” to be a valid argument against procreation. The problem is carried by humans as a collective and through the years it has been getting better and better.
Neither do I think that “prevention of potential suffering” is a valid argument. There is no joy without suffering and no life without both. Without bad there is no good. Life is about falling and getting back up. It is the essence of life. It is what gives life its worth. Would you choose not to be born at all in order to prevent your death? What even is the meaning of death if you’ve never been alive in the first place? To me not being born and death are equivalent: being alive is the short span in the eternity of the universe where you can experience the beauty of essence itself.
I personally can understood when you are 100% certain that the kid will have a birth defect that you might not want to have the child suffer under it. However, in many cases even those people are enjoying life just fine. People with down syndrome are famous for enjoying the little things in life and being full of happiness, despite the suffering.
In any case, the worth of the life of the child was to me a given and not even up for debate. I do not believe that children with bad parents shouldn’t have been born. Imagine telling somebody with bad parents “it would be better if you weren’t alive”. That’s obviously not moral. They would agree with you if they hated themselves, but I would not regard this as “good for their mental health”. They too deserve a happy life, despite their bad parents. Their life still has a lot of potential and it could still be worth it, despite all the trauma.
So what is left, if the child’s life is valuable in all cases? Just the concerns of the parents. And well, you already understood my thoughts on that. On an individual basis you might advice against procreation. In a general sense, never.
I haven’t even really talked about the interests of humans as a collective.
TheDarkQuark@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Would it be morally permissible to commit an immoral act if the sufferer were to be mildly compensated? Consider torture. In the first year, you feed them only water and poor prison bread. In the second year, you might find the meal too inhumane and add an apple. In the third year, you give them porridge. In the fourth, you give them a pie occasionally. Would you deem the torture moral simply because it has gradually improved for the sufferer?
I agree with you that joy cannot exist without suffering, and that experiencing joy requires experiencing suffering. However, you are an already existing being. In the interests of an existing being, it is rational to enjoy life (ignoring suicide). Nonexistent “beings”, however, are not subject to your predicaments. They do not need to experience joy or suffering, nor do they need to learn the necessity of “falling and getting back up”, or find the meaning of death. You are projecting your views on the beauty of the universe onto a being that neither experiences nor needs to experience it. There is nothing in it for a nonexistent being.
Given my previous examples of unavoidable suffering, I view the certainty of suffering as absolute. Moreover, I do not believe that just someone enjoying their life is a sufficient justification for an immoral act. Consider slavery. Enslaved people may find community among fellow sufferers. They might sing, dance, or express gratitude for what they have. Would that make slavery morally permissible? They play the hand they are dealt with and make the best of a difficult situation. The act of making the best of a bad situation does not negate the immorality of the act that imposed that suffering upon you.
Again, I believe you are conflating existing beings with nonexistent ones. I would consider a child’s life utterly valuable once they exist. However, I maintain the view that it would have been in their best interest not to be brought into existence in the first place. Also, the phrase “it would be better if you weren’t alive” is highly ambiguous. “Weren’t alive” can imply death, which seems to negate the value of their already existing life. That is not what I am doing here. To someone who would not misconstrue me or be emotionally hurt, I’d rather say something along the lines of “I am so sorry, it would have been in your best interest not to be brought into existence”. And yes, everyone deserves a happy life; but unfortunately, they do not get it. Instead, they experience substantial suffering that could have been avoided in the first place.
Regarding humanity as a collective, I somewhat agree with you. Creating the next generation reduces the probability of the current generation dying a miserable death. However, my point regarding this was that “kicking the can down the road” is not a good and permanent solution; it merely increases the collective suffering in the long run.