An Outlook I Find Very Hard To Understand

[Keith Maitland]

It still surprises me that so many people just go ahead and create an entire new human without really thinking through what they are doing to that person. It surprises me even more that so many people seem to think that life is inherently good and that living is a privilege and a treat. I find that outlook very hard to understand.

My convictions come from a deep concern for human rights. This is how I look at it:

1) In most modern, civilized societies, negative rights are taken very seriously. Those who violate basic negative rights -- through murder, rape, etc -- are punished severely, both legally and socially. The vast majority of people agree that it's unethical to violate the negative rights of others.

2) When a person has a child, they are exposing the child to millions of different harms, and they know that the child will experience many of those harms over a lifetime. If you know that an action (procreation) will result in harm to another person, and you go through with the action anyway without that person's consent, you're committing a negative rights violation.

3) Some people will respond that the positives of life outweigh the negatives. However, this is irrelevant. If you hit a random man on the street with a baseball bat without the man's consent and then give him a thousand dollars, you've still violated the man's negative rights. Perhaps the man would have consented if you told him about the thousand dollars beforehand, but that doesn't matter; harming someone without their consent is a negative rights violation.

4) Conclusion: procreation is a negative rights violation, and it should be prohibited in civilized societies just like other negative rights violations.

[Sriram]

   In the current scenario with 7+ billion people, I suppose such ideas should be welcome.....

But producing children is what humans (and all other organisms) do!  From the time the first RNA/DNA replicated, this sort of thing has been going on. We call it the procreation instinct.

Why we have this instinct and why at all organisms should survive and procreate is of course a meaningful question. But science cannot answer that.  They will only tell you to stop asking such questions.

If we resort to spirituality, the point of procreation is to produce more bodies (hardware) for souls to develop in.   In this case, it is not only important but even imperative that people should produce children. All their experiences, positive and negative, are only meant for their own development.

It is like complaining that children going to school have to put up with so many negative experiences...so keep them at home. Point is that it is all part of the development process.

[floo]

It still surprises me that so many people just go ahead and create an entire new human without really thinking through what they are doing to that person. It surprises me even more that so many people seem to think that life is inherently good and that living is a privilege and a treat. I find that outlook very hard to understand.

My convictions come from a deep concern for human rights. This is how I look at it:

1) In most modern, civilized societies, negative rights are taken very seriously. Those who violate basic negative rights -- through murder, rape, etc -- are punished severely, both legally and socially. The vast majority of people agree that it's unethical to violate the negative rights of others.

2) When a person has a child, they are exposing the child to millions of different harms, and they know that the child will experience many of those harms over a lifetime. If you know that an action (procreation) will result in harm to another person, and you go through with the action anyway without that person's consent, you're committing a negative rights violation.

3) Some people will respond that the positives of life outweigh the negatives. However, this is irrelevant. If you hit a random man on the street with a baseball bat without the man's consent and then give him a thousand dollars, you've still violated the man's negative rights. Perhaps the man would have consented if you told him about the thousand dollars beforehand, but that doesn't matter; harming someone without their consent is a negative rights violation.

4) Conclusion: procreation is a negative rights violation, and it should be prohibited in civilized societies just like other negative rights violations.

KM change the record!

[BeRational]

It still surprises me that so many people just go ahead and create an entire new human without really thinking through what they are doing to that person. It surprises me even more that so many people seem to think that life is inherently good and that living is a privilege and a treat. I find that outlook very hard to understand.

My convictions come from a deep concern for human rights. This is how I look at it:

1) In most modern, civilized societies, negative rights are taken very seriously. Those who violate basic negative rights -- through murder, rape, etc -- are punished severely, both legally and socially. The vast majority of people agree that it's unethical to violate the negative rights of others.

2) When a person has a child, they are exposing the child to millions of different harms, and they know that the child will experience many of those harms over a lifetime. If you know that an action (procreation) will result in harm to another person, and you go through with the action anyway without that person's consent, you're committing a negative rights violation.

3) Some people will respond that the positives of life outweigh the negatives. However, this is irrelevant. If you hit a random man on the street with a baseball bat without the man's consent and then give him a thousand dollars, you've still violated the man's negative rights. Perhaps the man would have consented if you told him about the thousand dollars beforehand, but that doesn't matter; harming someone without their consent is a negative rights violation.

4) Conclusion: procreation is a negative rights violation, and it should be prohibited in civilized societies just like other negative rights violations.

Absolute twaddle.

I see you keep living, so you must prefer life to death?

[SteveH]

Absolute twaddle.

I see you keep living, so you must prefer life to death?

I think he's extracting the urine. He can't mean conclusion 4 seriously.

[BeRational]

I think he's extracting the urine. He can't mean conclusion 4 seriously.

Not sure.

He posts this kind of rubbish quite often. In fact, it's the only subject he is interested in. DEATH!

[floo]

I suppose we should feel sorry for someone with such a bleak outlook on life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Marvin's back!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAA67a2-Klk

[Rhiannon]

I think he's extracting the urine. He can't mean conclusion 4 seriously.

He’s an antinatalist. It’s a recognised philosophical position.

[Rhiannon]

In reply to the OP... Keith, you forget that we are animals and are programmed to procreate. Obviously some can’t, and some don’t want to, but as a species it is how it is.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Kieth,

Just wondering, is there anything bigger in life, that decision to bring new life into this world?

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Kieth,

Just wondering, is there anything bigger in life, that decision to bring new life into this world?

Gonnagle.

I find this whole ‘decision’ thing rather odd. It’s not like moving home or something.

[Nearly Sane]

I find this whole ‘decision’ thing rather odd. It’s not like moving home or something.

A 'friend' of mine had a spreadsheet which listed the cost of having a child vs what cars he could afford.

[Rhiannon]

A 'friend' of mine had a spreadsheet which listed the cost of having a child vs what cars he could afford.

I was referring to people without personality disorders.

[Nearly Sane]

I was referring to people without personality disorders.

That's a bit harsh on men

[Rhiannon]

That's a bit harsh on men

Well I guess both driving an Aventador and having children are statements about owning a penis. 

[jeremyp]

I think he's extracting the urine. He can't mean conclusion 4 seriously.

Perhaps people should be vetted (pun intended) to determine if they are suitable to have children. It would certainly improve the lot of the children that were born if only people with the financial resources to bring up a child were allowed to and if they could demonstrate a commitment to the child's welfare.

I can't see it ever happening though.

[Rhiannon]

Perhaps people should be vetted (pun intended) to determine if they are suitable to have children. It would certainly improve the lot of the children that were born if only people with the financial resources to bring up a child were allowed to and if they could demonstrate a commitment to the child's welfare.

I can't see it ever happening though.

Seriously?

All that makes a good parent is fish and being able to convince someone (who?) that they are ‘committed’.

Please tell me this postvis a joke that I’m just not getting.

[ippy]

Perhaps people should be vetted (pun intended) to determine if they are suitable to have children. It would certainly improve the lot of the children that were born if only people with the financial resources to bring up a child were allowed to and if they could demonstrate a commitment to the child's welfare.

I can't see it ever happening though.

I adopted my two boys, we were vetted, must have fooled em, they still let us have them, the oldest is nearly forty now, they're not quite as good looking as their dad, I suppose they can't have everything.

Seriously, I wonder how many would be allowed to have children if everybody had to be vetted at length and as vigorously as we were, before they were allowed to have their children? Oh yes then have to be presented before a quarter sessions judge before all of the paperwork was handed over an checked then boys were signed over to us, in chambers, not in the full court.

Regards ippy

[jeremyp]

Seriously?

All that makes a good parent is fish and being able to convince someone (who?) that they are ‘committed’.

Please tell me this postvis a joke that I’m just not getting.

Some people go on about how well brought up children (whatever that means) are correlated with a mother and a father (female and male). However, what is definitely correlated is the educational achievement of the children and the relative wealth of the parents. Why is it that we don't discourage people who lack the resources to bring up children from having babies?

[torridon]

It still surprises me that so many people just go ahead and create an entire new human without really thinking through what they are doing to that person. It surprises me even more that so many people seem to think that life is inherently good and that living is a privilege and a treat. I find that outlook very hard to understand.

My convictions come from a deep concern for human rights. This is how I look at it:

1) In most modern, civilized societies, negative rights are taken very seriously. Those who violate basic negative rights -- through murder, rape, etc -- are punished severely, both legally and socially. The vast majority of people agree that it's unethical to violate the negative rights of others.

2) When a person has a child, they are exposing the child to millions of different harms, and they know that the child will experience many of those harms over a lifetime. If you know that an action (procreation) will result in harm to another person, and you go through with the action anyway without that person's consent, you're committing a negative rights violation.

3) Some people will respond that the positives of life outweigh the negatives. However, this is irrelevant. If you hit a random man on the street with a baseball bat without the man's consent and then give him a thousand dollars, you've still violated the man's negative rights. Perhaps the man would have consented if you told him about the thousand dollars beforehand, but that doesn't matter; harming someone without their consent is a negative rights violation.

4) Conclusion: procreation is a negative rights violation, and it should be prohibited in civilized societies just like other negative rights violations.

Maybe there is a false equivalence at the heart of that.

Bashing someone with a baseball bat and giving him a thousand dollars can be weighed within a reference frame, a broader context, within which we can ascribe positive or negative values to the action.

I'm not sure there is an analogous overarching context in which we can similarly ask the Shakespearean question, to be or not to be.  With no reference frame to measure the value of being or not being, how can that be evaluated ?

[Robbie]

I was interested in what ippy had to say: most of us have kids when we want them and don't have to go through a thorough overhaul. I'm not saying we should - but it is a big thing in our lives, not to be undertaken lightly.

Keith strikes me as depressive and I sympathise with him so am not going to add more comments about him.

[Rhiannon]

Some people go on about how well brought up children (whatever that means) are correlated with a mother and a father (female and male). However, what is definitely correlated is the educational achievement of the children and the relative wealth of the parents. Why is it that we don't discourage people who lack the resources to bring up children from having babies?

Get real. I come from an affluent household and my parenting was shit. And I have friends who have never come to terms with that ultimate affluent parental lifestyle choice, being sent away to boarding school.

So what do you advocate then? Compulsory abortions for women on benefits?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Get real. I come from an affluent household and my parenting was shit. And I have friends who have never come to terms with that ultimate affluent parental lifestyle choice, being sent away to boarding school.

So what do you advocate then? Compulsory abortions for women on benefits?

I wonder if we can recast our whole recent political past in terms of rule by people packed off to boarding school at a time when most others could go home each night to some kind of family life.

[floo]

Some people go on about how well brought up children (whatever that means) are correlated with a mother and a father (female and male). However, what is definitely correlated is the educational achievement of the children and the relative wealth of the parents. Why is it that we don't discourage people who lack the resources to bring up children from having babies?

Wealth doesn't necessarily ensure good parenting.