Calling Languish parents: Why did you decide to have children?

[Valdemar]

Mart, have you ever asked your parents why they had you?

This is a cheap shot and a typical response in discussions like this. Rather lame.

Apart from your parents not being on languish it is as legit as the ones you post...

It could be rephrased then... what justification do you THINK you parents had for having you?

V

[Valdemar]

"You know whats going to happen here in the morning? The whole damn forum is going to be here. They'll move through this thread, occupy these posts on the other side and when our people get here Marti will have the high ground. There will be the devil to pay! The high ground! Berkut will come in slowly, cautiously. New to command. They'll be on his back in The Off Topic Topic, wire hot with messages 'Post! Post!' So he will set up a ring around the Thread Starter. And when Marti's nicely entrenched behind fat posts on the high ground, Berkut will finally attack, if he can coordinate BB and Malthus. Straight up the thread, out in the open, in that gorgeous field of fire.

We will post valiantly... and be trolled valiantly! And afterwards posters in tall hats and gold watch fobs will thump their chest and say what a brave thread it was.

Katmai, I've led a mod's life, and I've never seen anything as brutally clear as this."

Seriously CdM, you should get published

V

[Valdemar]

Just to make sure I annoy marti by having a few posts in a row...

I did notice that the serious answers held the same premise as I started out mocking,

Why is justification needed? And why is marti so keen on trying to expose others choices rather than explaning his own?

V

[Martinus]

Every Kantian will tell you there is an absolute difference between a developed human being and only a potential human being.

You do realize you just fatally undermined your argument.
If a potential human being does not count morally as a person, then there can be no objection under the practical imperative to using it as a means.

So then the analysis becomes:
+ From the POV of the prospective parents, they are using a thing (non-person/potential personal) to help achieve the end of enriching their own lives.   Which is morally permissible, and perhaps even a positive good.
+ From the POV of the potential person, they are better off having the opportunity of an actual life than no opportunity at all.

And it's all good all around for all involved.

Hell, my philosophy professor at college argued that "women and children" first is the biggest moral failing of them all, since unlike adults, children are not fully developed human beings, and as such their lives are clearly less valuable. She was a Kantian.

And a Pole.

An act of creation affects the created being. An act of non-creation does not affect the created being. Is this so hard to understand?

[crazy canuck]

Every Kantian will tell you there is an absolute difference between a developed human being and only a potential human being.

You do realize you just fatally undermined your argument.
If a potential human being does not count morally as a person, then there can be no objection under the practical imperative to using it as a means.

So then the analysis becomes:
+ From the POV of the prospective parents, they are using a thing (non-person/potential personal) to help achieve the end of enriching their own lives.   Which is morally permissible, and perhaps even a positive good.
+ From the POV of the potential person, they are better off having the opportunity of an actual life than no opportunity at all.

And it's all good all around for all involved.

Hell, my philosophy professor at college argued that "women and children" first is the biggest moral failing of them all, since unlike adults, children are not fully developed human beings, and as such their lives are clearly less valuable. She was a Kantian.

And a Pole.

An act of creation affects the created being. An act of non-creation does not affect the created being. Is this so hard to understand?

And so the Act of creation benefits both the created being and the creators.  Is this so hard to understand?

[Martinus]

And so the Act of creation benefits both the created being and the creators.  Is this so hard to understand?

It doesn't have to, though - or are we saying that, no matter the circumstances, it's better to exist than never to exist (I disagree).

My point is that the question "why did you decide to have children" is not an irrelevant question - because sometimes it is not good for the child to be born in a certain set of circumstances. I guess my point (which is controversial) is that - if you are not certain if, by creating a child, you are going to benefit and not harm the child, should you err on the side of creation or non-creation?

That is why, ultimately, I argue that people who decide to have children should have children (or a child - as again, it may be better from a child perspective to be a only child than one out of four, for example) if they are convinced this will be for the benefit of the child in question. Concerns such as "I want to have company" or "I want to spread my genes" or "I want to have someone look after me when I'm old" should be secondary to that.

[The Brain]

Of all the different things that go into a decision to have kids or not abstract moral stuff seems to me to be one of the least interesting or important.

[Martinus]

Of all the different things that go into a decision to have kids or not abstract moral stuff seems to me to be one of the least interesting or important.

That's not abstract moral stuff - surely we agree that a lot of people who should never have children (or should not have children at a particular moment of their lives) have children nonethless, right?

I guess ultimately this is where the whole lot of defensiveness in this thread comes from - because I am asking people who have children to consider if they indeed should have children (whether at all or at the particular moment of their lives) - because of a whole plethora of things, such as financial conditions, stability of their marriages, their personalities or hereditary diseases etc. It is much easier to abrogate that responsibility by claiming that "everyone should have children" or that it is an instinct - but I argue this is not the case and self-aware humans should decide that for themselves consciously and honestly.

[Malthus]

And so the Act of creation benefits both the created being and the creators.  Is this so hard to understand?

It doesn't have to, though - or are we saying that, no matter the circumstances, it's better to exist than never to exist (I disagree).

My point is that the question "why did you decide to have children" is not an irrelevant question - because sometimes it is not good for the child to be born in a certain set of circumstances. I guess my point (which is controversial) is that - if you are not certain if, by creating a child, you are going to benefit and not harm the child, should you err on the side of creation or non-creation?

That is why, ultimately, I argue that people who decide to have children should have children (or a child - as again, it may be better from a child perspective to be a only child than one out of four, for example) if they are convinced this will be for the benefit of the child in question. Concerns such as "I want to have company" or "I want to spread my genes" or "I want to have someone look after me when I'm old" should be secondary to that.

Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.

For the vast majority of parents in the first world, these are not relevant considerations. 

[crazy canuck]

It doesn't have to, though - or are we saying that, no matter the circumstances, it's better to exist than never to exist (I disagree).

Your continued existence puts the lie to your contention.

[Martinus]

Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.

I disagree - what about a risk of hereditary diseases. Or parents having bad personality traits. Or having already a couple of children and the fact that they won't have as much time to dedicate to their upbringing if they bring a new one into the fold. Or living in a deteriorating relationship and hoping selfishly that bringing a child into this mess will help them "rekindle" the love. All such people should seriously consider if they should have children.

[Martinus]

It doesn't have to, though - or are we saying that, no matter the circumstances, it's better to exist than never to exist (I disagree).

Your continued existence puts the lie to your contention.

See, this is why I regret the ignore function was removed (you were one of the people on my list). After I state my position, you respond with an insult. You are not worthy of my time.

So yes, let's play this game. I continuously hope you and your family die of cancer. Hopefully your wife and your kids before you so you can live through it.

[Malthus]

Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.

I disagree - what about a risk of hereditary diseases. Or parents having bad personality traits. Or having already a couple of children and the fact that they won't have as much time to dedicate to their upbringing if they bring a new one into the fold. Or living in a deteriorating relationship and hoping selfishly that bringing a child into this mess will help them "rekindle" the love. All such people should seriously consider if they should have children.

Seems to me that these are either extremely rare (heriditary diseases so severe as to be a serious factor?), impossible to evaluate (how many people judge themselves to have such negative personality traits as to make child-rearing morally suspect?) or silly (having 3 children isn't morally wrong - I'm a third child myself  ).

Having children for ulterior motives is a bad idea, but not because it is bad for the child - unless the parent plans to discard or ignore the kid of the motive doesn't pan out.

In summary, it is only in ususual cases where a parent would have to seriously consider whether a kid would be better off not existing.

[crazy canuck]

See, this is why I regret the ignore function was removed (you were one of the people on my list). After I state my position, you respond with an insult.

So yes, let's play this game. I continuously hope you and your family die of cancer. Hopefully your wife and your kids before you so you can live through it.

I dont blame you for trying to ignore refutations of your world view.  I can see why it is at times uncomfortable.  My statement was not meant as an insult but merely to point out the difficulty with your position.  You state as a first principle that it is not better to exist than to not exist.  If you really believed that you would do something about your continued existence.

But then we get into the conceit of your argument.  Its not that you are not worthy of existence.  You are amazing and fully worthy of existence - so you think.  It is all those others who are not.

[Martinus]

Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.

I disagree - what about a risk of hereditary diseases. Or parents having bad personality traits. Or having already a couple of children and the fact that they won't have as much time to dedicate to their upbringing if they bring a new one into the fold. Or living in a deteriorating relationship and hoping selfishly that bringing a child into this mess will help them "rekindle" the love. All such people should seriously consider if they should have children.

Seems to me that these are either extremely rare (heriditary diseases so severe as to be a serious factor?), impossible to evaluate (how many people judge themselves to have such negative personality traits as to make child-rearing morally suspect?) or silly (having 3 children isn't morally wrong - I'm a third child myself  ).

Having children for ulterior motives is a bad idea, but not because it is bad for the child - unless the parent plans to discard or ignore the kid of the motive doesn't pan out.

In summary, it is only in ususual cases where a parent would have to seriously consider whether a kid would be better off not existing.

Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree - because my point is that people shouldn't have children unless they are convinced they will be good parents providing the child with the best circumstances - not vice versa.

Which also brings us back to the question asked of me in the beginning - why do I decide not to have children - because I am not convinced I would have personality traits that would make me a good parent. The fact that people I consider my lessers have children is not a good enough cause for me to lower my standards.