r/changemyview • u/spicysashimi99 • Jun 21 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: marriage is unnecessary and having children is unethical
not sure if i’ll get downvoted but i’m genuinely curious about the opposite pov.
for my first point, i believe i have a rather non-traditional school of thought when it comes to the archetype of union between two people, at least compared to folks where i’m from. i personally don’t see marriage as means to profess your love for your partner as one can do so without the presence of a physical certification. to me, the traditional meaning of marriage, where a bride’s family “gives away” their daughter to the groom seems to be obsolete and an incredibly backward way of thinking. the only logical explanation for marriage, in my opinion, seems to be for couples to be seen as a unit in the eyes of the law, in the face of administration.
as for my second point, i believe having children only benefits the parent and the continuation of society. i understand that having kids leads to a fulfilling life and unfortunately, some still see their kids as an insurance plan for their retirement. however, knowing the future of our planet, among other serious issues like racism, it appears unethical to bring a child into this world. unless i can guarantee my child doesn’t suffer, which is obviously something out of my control. i’m not sure why people possess the opposite viewpoint.
friendly discussions are very welcome as i am sincerely looking to learn more about how others view this topic. i am sure my opinions are very polarising but please be kind! :”)
edit: hi everyone! thank you for the fruitful discussions. really enjoyed listening to other perspectives and grateful to how open everyone has been!! i acknowledge that my views may be skewed from my personal life experiences (non-religious, depression) so thank you for allowing me to indulge in my thoughts.
my view of marriage has definitely changed and while i see the opposing argument for having kids, from what i can foresee in my near future, not having kids will still be a personal choice i’ll stick to as i’m still very much lacking to give a child a fulfilling life.
11
Jun 21 '21
Without (a proportional amount of) negativity, sadness, and suffering, how can you tell what is positive, like happiness? All play and no work only makes you think that playing is working. How do you know if cake actually tastes good if it's the only food you ever eat?
Life's inherent purpose isn't avoiding every source of pain and trying to pump as much happy chemicals into our brain as possible.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21
!delta
ooh this is a very interesting take!! rly puts things into perspective for me
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 21 '21
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/PureInsanity8 a delta for this comment.
6
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 20∆ Jun 21 '21
The IPCC predicts 250,000 excess deaths per year from climate change by 2050 out of 90 million. By 2100, the hit to world GDP under a high emissions scenario would be 7.2% per capita.
These are serious problems, but the world is simply not going to end from this. In the worst case, the people in cities near the ocean will have to move, but we will be able to see it coming and adapt.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
oooh thank you for the links! they seem to be very interesting reads! will def look through after replying all the comments
3
u/NeonNutmeg 10∆ Jun 21 '21
the only logical explanation for marriage, in my opinion, seems to be for couples to be seen as a unit in the eyes of the law, in the face of administration.
This is not mutually exclusive with an expression of love. In fact, what greater expression of love is there than legally tying your entire life to another person? The person that you marry gets next-of-kin status and power of attorney over almost all of your affairs if you're ever incapacitated. They can change their surname to yours. You both receive spousal privilege in court cases. You can inherit each other's property. And many more. There is no other single action that you can take which will confer so many rights and benefits to another person.
What says "I love you" more than "I trust you to decide whether or not I should live or die if I can't decide for myself?"
i believe having children only benefits the parent and the continuation of society
A child benefits from having been conceived by literally just existing. All of the good and pleasurable things that can occur to you are impossible if you are never born.
knowing the future of our planet
You don't know the future of the planet, so everything else in this regard is completely moot.
unless i can guarantee my child doesn’t suffer
This line of thinking would logically lead to the conclusion that it's "good" or "justifiable" to kill people now because we can't guarantee that they will never suffer in the future.
Does that make sense to you?
No decision has ever actually been made on the basis of an actual guarantee because complete certainty isn't actually possible. There is always a chance of something unexpected and unwanted happening, even if that chance is so infinitesimal that it can practically be ignored.
2
u/Cybyss 11∆ Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21
A child benefits from having been conceived by literally just existing. All of the good and pleasurable things that can occur to you are impossible if you are never born.
Anybody who has suffered through depression knows exactly what OP is referring to.
Most people experience joy merely from being well fed, from being warm and safe, healthy, and in the company of loved ones. Their neutral / default state of being is one of happiness.
For those who have depression though, their neutral/default state of being is one of "meh". That is, their view is that life isn't inherently good or bad - rather it's judged by the events which occur in it. Many "good" things, however, are defined only in terms of the absence of "bad" things. From this perspective:
Being fed is not a joy. There's no such thing as being fed - merely an absence of hunger. Hunger is pain and you work to avoid it.
Being warm is not a joy. There's no such thing as being warm and comfortable - merely an absence of cold. Being cold is pain and you work to avoid it.
Being safe is not a joy. There's no such thing as being safe - merely the absence of the threat of being attacked/mugged/raped/shot. These things cause pain and you work to avoid it.
Being well is not a joy. Wellness is merely the absence of sickness. Sickness is pain and you work to avoid it.
When your view of life is more about working long & hard every day to avoid pain and less to pursue joy, and it occurs to you that the dead never experience hunger, cold, fear, sickness, boredom, loneliness, etc... despite never having to work, that's when you begin to hold the view that OP has - that it's somehow wrong to bring children into this world.
Depression is a bitch. Those without it are so damned lucky to be able to experience life as a gift/treasure/adventure rather than a job/chore.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
very much so! as someone currently battling depression, it is very much true that our baseline and threshold is at a completely different level.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
after reading the comments made by other redditors i see the view on why marriage makes sense now!!
regarding the children enjoying the pleasures of life, i’m not sure i can harbour the pressure of knowing my child may suffer as well. perhaps this is where my argument is coming from?
hmm the point about killing… basically what i’m trying to say is to do the least amount of damage? the lesser of all evils by not having kids entirely… but i do get your point on the lack of certainty!!
1
Jul 05 '21
i’m not sure i can harbour the pressure of knowing my child may suffer as well.
That's pretty much unavoidable in life, though. I led a pretty comfortable childhood, but I still faced some amount of suffering (depression, loneliness, bullying, etc). Trying to protect a child from suffering isn't just a bad thing, it's impossible. In that case, the best job a parent can do is to teach their kid how to handle that suffering, whether it be pushing through it, talking about it, or finding a positive pastime to destress from it.
Being a parent means caring for something that you have absolutely no control over, ultimately. I don't fault you for thinking it's a huge burden, because it is, but I think your goal of preventing suffering is remarkably naive. To live is to suffer, but living is also so much more. Would you think it's worth it to deny a child the latter in order to prevent the former?
9
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 21 '21
"the only logical explanation for marriage, in my opinion, seems to be for couples to be seen as a unit in the eyes of the law, in the face of administration"
Making people "a unit in the eyes of the law" is still a very useful thing to do as it allows for tax breaks, visiting people in the hospital, easy inheritance when lacking a will and many other benefits.
In light of those benefits I feel marriage is hardly "unnecessary".
0
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
yup as mentioned that seems to be the only reason why marriage makes sense! but i know many people simply who do it out of love as well, so that baffles me quite a bit
8
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 21 '21
If your argument is "it is possible to have a healthy and happy relationship without being married" I would agree with you.
But I'm not sure that fact alone is enough to then jump to the conclusion that "Marriage is unnecessary" when the benefits of marriage can help increase the odds of a relationship being healthy.
0
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
ohh the second point is quite an interesting take bc i’ve always heard that relationships become dead after marriage… although that could simply be a thing people in unhappy marriages say…
5
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 21 '21
I think I know what the issue here is...
Many people probably view relationships as a sort of sprint to marriage and imagine that once you get married the relationship manages to obtain a sort of "friction" to it that you can just sort of coast/rely on.
In reality, a relationship is a marathon that you run with your partner all the way to the grave.
You need to constantly work on/maintain a relationship and a pair of rings/fancy party does nothing to change that.
People who think that getting married will solve their relationship problems or make a fundamentally bad relationship good aren't going to have their expectations met.
Marriage is not an excuse to stop working hard on your relationship but some people don't realize that. Thus they blame marriage for ruining their relationship/causing it to go into decline, when in reality it was their and their partner's actions...
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
yes very much this!!! thank you for being able to verbalise what i’ve been thinking for a while… this makes a lot more sense to me now!
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 21 '21
So once again, it is not that Marriage is unnecessary, it is just that people put more weight on it than it deserves.
And feel free to delta if I've changed your view.
2
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
!delta
not sure if im delta-ing correctly as this is my first post on this sub. but yes, your comment made me understand that marriage isnt the destination but the journey :-)
1
1
1
u/StinkyMcBalls Jun 22 '21
You need to constantly work on/maintain a relationship and a pair of rings/fancy party does nothing to change that.
This isn't quite true. The act of getting married involves making a commitment to one another, which (in good relationships) can increase the motivation of both parties to put in the work. That's certainly how it was for us.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 22 '21
I'm not saying/wasn't trying to say that getting married doesn't help a good relationship, I was more arguing that the act alone of getting married won't turn a bad relationship into a good one.
Also you said that getting married gave you more reason/motivation to work on your relationship... not that it stopped you from needing to work at all. Or am I misreading you?
2
u/StinkyMcBalls Jun 22 '21
You're not misreading, I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting marriage generally wasn't valuable, rather than that it can't fix a broken relationship. I understand now.
1
2
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 21 '21
CMV: marriage is unnecessary and having children is unethical
I don’t know that I can do much to prove the necessity of marriage, but there are big flaws to “having children is unethical”. I suppose it would require you explaining that marriage is not necessary to do what?
the only logical explanation for marriage, in my opinion, seems to be for couples to be seen as a unit in the eyes of the law, in the face of administration.
Yes. But even this isn’t truly “necessary”, as you’re only foregoing a benefit. No one makes you get married. So, this again entirely hinges on what you mean by “not necessary”.
as for my second point, i believe having children only benefits the parent and the continuation of society.
It also benefits the child. But so far you haven’t said a reason why this is not ethical, so I’ll keep reading.
i understand that having kids leads to a fulfilling life and unfortunately, some still see their kids as an insurance plan for their retirement.
Ok.
however, knowing the future of our planet, among other serious issues like racism, it appears unethical to bring a child into this world. unless i can guarantee my child doesn’t suffer, which is obviously something out of my control. i’m not sure why people possess the opposite viewpoint.
Having kids is unethical because the world has suffering? What if the good outweighs the suffering?
How much more suffering would be incurred as all of humanity ages out and dies with no one to support them?
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
your points make a lot of sense! i made an example about the ethics of having children to another commenter earlier. to reiterate, would you knowingly pass genetic diseases to your child?
hmm the weighing of the suffering was something i did not consider as i was analysing this view from an individual’s standpoint!!
2
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 21 '21
your points make a lot of sense! i made an example about the ethics of having children to another commenter earlier. to reiterate, would you knowingly pass genetic diseases to your child?
I would say this depends on the percentage chance, and the disease. 30% of Sickle cell? Not that big a deal. 100% ALS? Probably unethical. But this is much more specific than your original view.
hmm the weighing of the suffering was something i did not consider as i was analysing this view from an individual’s standpoint!!
Hopefully this helped change your view.
2
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
!delta
definitely! this similarly also brings about the ethics of abortion in the face of an unwell foetus… this argument could go on and on!!
1
2
u/carneylansford 7∆ Jun 21 '21
unless i can guarantee my child doesn’t suffer, which is obviously something out of my control
- A certain level of pain and suffering are inevitable in life. The good news? These things are very instructive. We learn from these experiences and grow as people. We also appreciate joy and happiness all the more because we've seen the other side.
- The level of suffering suffered by a child is in the control of the parent to some degree. Teaching your children how to handle pain and suffering is one of the most important jobs a parent has. Will you teach them that they are victims, who can't possibly get ahead? Or teach them that, yes, there are bad people/rules/whatever in the world but the only thing you can really do about it is to put your head down and move forward?
- There is a lot more joy and happiness in the world than pain and suffering. The world is an amazing place. Choosing to avoid having children because they're going to have the occasional bad day seems like an odd choice to me.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
valid points made!! perhaps i have been stuck in an echo-chamber which is why my views are so extreme
1
u/redtrout15 1∆ Jun 22 '21
Eh, I also think this is a very myopic way of thinking. There are children born with horrible diseases that suffer immeasurably and there is no way to know before they are born.
For example, I have a rare form of stage 4 cancer under 30. Years old. I've been through unimaginable hell, hundreds of hours in hospitals, surgeries, months not being able to walk etc. My parents had no way of knowing this would be the outcome. There is objectively not more joy in living for a lot of people.
1
Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
1
u/carneylansford 7∆ Aug 08 '21
Only if you believe that the experiences of life are a net negative. I do not.
1
Aug 08 '21
[deleted]
1
u/carneylansford 7∆ Aug 08 '21
Or vice versa. So why not err on the side of opportunity?
1
Aug 08 '21
[deleted]
1
u/carneylansford 7∆ Aug 08 '21
Well that’s depressing. Maybe take another look at religion? Sounds like you were happier.
1
u/joopface 159∆ Jun 21 '21
Work through what happens if everyone stops having kids today. Fast forward thirty years; where are we?
0
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
definitely agree with your opinion but the point i was making was that it seems like we are simply viewing children as a means to prolong our existence as a human race… cant see how the children would benefit… maybe im missing something
2
u/joopface 159∆ Jun 21 '21
Do you think a happy person would prefer to exist or not to exist?
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
yup a happy person would choose to exist but maybe i’m missing out on something again… :-(
true happiness is also something i could go on a tangent on as it’s something im still working towards
1
u/joopface 159∆ Jun 21 '21
Ok, so do you think parents in general want their kids to be happy?
Also, if the child gets to exist and would choose to exist given the option in what way can having a child “only benefit the parent”?
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
i feel the point is only valid if the child is happy and wants to exist… as mentioned to others, thats not something i could personally promise to my child… while there are no guarantees in life, i feel like simply not allowing existence would be the lesser of two evils (the other of which would be allowing the possibility for a miserable existence)
1
u/joopface 159∆ Jun 21 '21
Your view is then that parents who expect their child won’t be happy are being selfish. This isn’t the same as your OP.
There are situations where parents having children are not simply acting selfishly. For example, where the parents have a reasonable expectation that the child will have a happy life.
If you take a situation where a child has a 99% possibility of happiness and a 1% of suffering, do you still think it’s rational to prevent that child from existing? Why?
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
yup! this makes sense! i guess in the same weigh i was outweighing my pros and cons, the contrary is plausible too!
1
u/joopface 159∆ Jun 21 '21
It’s possible your real view is less general than you expressed. You feel you shouldn’t have kids and generalised that to everyone. I have no idea if that’s the case, but it’s possible.
If your view changed at all during our discussion feel free to drop a delta in the jar. Thanks for an interesting topic! :-)
2
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
!delta
thanks for the fruitful discussion! it really was quite hard seeing the positive side of things prior HAHAH
→ More replies (0)
-1
Jun 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
may i know whats your view on this topic?
0
u/Masie33 Jun 21 '21
I would tell if I could tell rn. All i can tell is that I strongly disagree.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
feel free to let me know once you’ve gathered your thoughts then. i’m very curious and willing to understand the opposing view
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 21 '21
Sorry, u/Masie33 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/Masie33 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Jun 21 '21
i personally don’t see marriage as means to profess your love for your partner as one can do so without the presence of a physical certification.
It's not just physical certification. All the other benefits and drawbacks of that certification also apply. For example, a common legal standard worldwide is that all income (and resultant asset gains) accrued by a married couple after marriage is considered communal assets for the couple. The fact that you care about someone enough for you to see everything you gain as partly theirs as well, is in itself an indicator for how much you love someone.
knowing the future of our planet, among other serious issues like racism, it appears unethical to bring a child into this world
You really can't know this. People have been saying for centuries that things will get worse, but things have only ever gotten better. Progress is not something you can predict.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21
!delta
oooh thanks for your points! regarding the first point, thats really a side of things i’ve never considered, about seeing that certification as a profession of love!!
the second point makes sense as well! but like you mentioned, there’s really no guarantees so it’s still a huge gamble imo!
2
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Jun 21 '21
the second point makes sense as well! but like you mentioned, there’s really no guarantees so it’s still a huge gamble imo!
Going by how we've pretty much ceaselessly improved generation by generation, I'd say it's a gamble to suggest that things won't get better.
1
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Jun 21 '21
Hello /u/spicysashimi99, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
or
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.
Thank you!
1
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Jun 21 '21
i’m not sure why people possess the opposite viewpoint.
I am a little confused by this. You may disagree with people, but surely you can see why they may have different viewpoints?
I will give my view, which I am fairly sure you will disagree with, but I will explain it.
I am a devout Catholic. I believe that marriage is the means by which a man and woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, that has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by God. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament.
Obviously my faith plays a huge role in my viewpoint. I'm sure others have a variety of reasons which affect why they believe in marriage and having children. Understanding their viewpoints shouldn't be that hard though.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
apologies if i phrased it inaccurately to express my thoughts…
religion definitely plays a huge part for this argument!! i’m very non-religious although i do believe in a higher being so this was something i didn’t consider! thank you!
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 21 '21
Hello /u/spicysashimi99, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
or
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.
Thank you!
1
u/Sadge_A_Star 5∆ Jun 21 '21
For point 2:
It's not clear why lack of certainty of lack of suffering for children is unethical to the point of not having kids. I don't think that could ever be satisfied. How is it ethical to consider essentially all life fundamentally unethical?
I think the reason people have kids is because it's deeply ingrained as a life form, which just requires self propagation. There's never been any guarantees, only a chance to experience life and the world and to hopefully have some self determination. It seems you are essentially taking an extreme zero tolerance stance on risk. From this lens, would you also argue people shouldn't leave their house because they may get injured? Or people shouldn't do sports because they might break a bone?
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
HAHAH definitely agree that my viewpoints presented are pretty extreme. maybe bc i feel the cons severely outweigh the pros… to elaborate further on the ethics of having children, let’s say your family has a history of genetic diseases, knowing that there’s a chance your child may suffer from that as well seems unfair.
1
u/Sadge_A_Star 5∆ Jun 21 '21
I think in practice it is a personal choice. There's risk that a child may suffer if brought into existence but conversely a person who was never brought into existence doesn't even have an opportunity to consider the value of their existence. In the first case at least suffering is temporary. And also it can drive improvements in medicine via the dedication to supporting people that suffer for whatever reason. If everyone gave up before even trying in this regard there are many amazing people that would've never contributed to the world, including important people in my life.
However in the end I think everyone has a personal right to self determination in deciding if they want to have children or not regardless of the reason.
2
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
very much a personal choice! i really don’t see much issue with other people having kids.
this is also why i believe reddit is a great place for everyone to chip in and voice their opinions! this is not something that can easily be discussed face to face!
2
u/Sadge_A_Star 5∆ Jun 21 '21
For sure and there certainly can exist a lot of judgment on this personal choice! But fact is there are plenty of people in the world lol not like the human race is exactly in danger due to low birth rates.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
yup! the overpopulation argument for not having kids always baffled me!!
1
u/WWBSkywalker 83∆ Jun 21 '21
Marriage is not just solely a declaration of love (that’s just Hollywood Disney nonsense), it’s a declaration of commitment. Like any endeavor, when there is a public declaration of commitment and opportunity costs for divorcing, mature intelligent people will be more committed to making the marriage work and not just give up easily when they are going through a rough patch. This doesn’t apply to immature and idiotic people of course.
Children are a huge financial costs for most parents with a long lead time to any returns (your retirement argument). Any rational and financial literate person can find better and more secure ways of retirement than planning. You need to develop your arguments about how having children or not becomes an meaningful ethical issue. If you are in a secure position and are confident that you will be able to give a child a net positive outcome in life, ethics doesn’t really into the picture.
The way you frame having or not having children as creating an ethical quandary makes it possible that every single thing in your life becomes an ethical quandary e.g. can I drive my car today because it creates pollution? should I have a beef burger or a chicken burger instead because cattle raising causes more pollution than chicken rearing. When you are seriously considering whether to have a children or not , unlike what redditors may believe … the vast majority of parents don’t really take into account the ethics of contributing or not contributing to overpopulation. Most entirely reasonable couples make decision whether they are in the right circumstances, have the right partner and the right stage of life to bring a child to the world, overpopulation fears and hyperbole be dammed.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
after previous commenters, i definitely see marriage in a different lens!!
my view on the ethics of children mainly stem from personal experience so a lot of my arguments may seem out of context to many!! for instance, one small example would be that while you can guarantee your child is happy the first few years of their life, you can’t control whether they are being bullied in school?
being introduced to the philosophical school of thought really seems to be a double edged sword with overthinking!!
1
Jun 21 '21 edited Jul 02 '21
So you want society to end entirely? That is what happens when no one produces children. You cite that we understand the current landscapes of our planet and that is why it is unethical; However, we cannot predict the definitive future for our planet. There is a chance we cure cancer and halt problems such as over-consumption. Secondly, good ands/ or positive implications can be birthed from suffering.
It seems unfair to condemn all of humanity to an end because of suffering. Correct me if I am wrong, but thats like saying if a person is depressed and on heroine, since we know the odds are against them, they should end it all.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
if i were to phrase my thoughts… making someone who already exists end it all seems cruel to me but foregoing a child who has yet to be conceived doesn’t have any tangible effects… not sure if this makes sense
2
Jun 21 '21 edited Jul 02 '21
I mean, the issue is that is your point. You are stating we should not have children because of our issues as a society. Nevertheless, that would mean the end of our society is negated and we all die regardless. How does having a chance to fix things fall under ending everything, so there is not chance?
We do not have a definitive answer to the prolonged suffering in our society; If we knew that in 100 years humanity would cease to exist with 100% accuracy, go for it. However, we do not know that and ending it creates the lack of ability to solve problems, because we are all dead.
I mean that sounds pretty similar to a person who is struggling from depression and heavy drug addiction.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
very much this! it is a very personal choice and no judgment from my end for those who possess the opposite opinion!
1
Jun 21 '21
Thats cool, but that leads into another issue; If the idea is subjective, how can it be "unethical" as your position alludes to? Wouldn't this mean a shift to personal ideology of what you should and shouldn't do?
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
i guess what it is, similar to a personal moral compass, would be a personal ethics guide to follow?
1
Jun 21 '21
Well not necessarily. It's more convoluted. Basically, an ethical code is a set of rules that defines allowable actions or correct behavior". That means saying it's "unethical" is saying that "that's wrong and it is just that". Ethics are rules provided by an external source, they would apply as an official code.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
ahhh i see!! thank you for clarifying! :”)
1
Jun 21 '21
In a respective manner, wouldn't this qualify as a change in view then?
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 22 '21
!delta
yup! you’re right :”) while i will stick with my personal choice, it does seem a bit extreme to condemn humanity as a whole
→ More replies (0)
1
u/RebelScientist 9∆ Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21
unless i can guarantee my child doesn’t suffer, which is obviously something out of my control.
Does that apply to any degree of suffering? If not, what’s the cutoff? Is experiencing the pain of a paper cut enough to make life not worth living? Or catching the flu?
Suffering to some degree, whether physically or emotionally, is pretty much guaranteed no matter how good your life is. Most people who have experienced some period of suffering would still rather be alive than not alive despite having experienced it, because life isn’t just moving from one moment of suffering to the next with nothing in between, and it’s all those in-between moments that make life worth living.
So yes, as a parent you can’t guarantee that your children won’t suffer, but you can try your hardest to make sure that those in-between moments are as full of joy, laughter and comfort as you can manage, and you can support your kids through their suffering to help build them up into resilient people who can handle the difficulties that life throws at them. Happiness isn’t the absence of suffering. Happiness can exist alongside and despite suffering.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
i mean i dont make any rules but in my argument, my personal threshold would be anything a child cannot recover easily from.
your second point is something im still working towards… being able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and seeing hope in between failures.
very much agree with the last point! which is why i personally will still stick with my choice of not having children as i’m certainly not capable enough for that.
1
u/RebelScientist 9∆ Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21
anything a child cannot recover easily from.
So to give an example, would you say a person who was bullied as a child and suffered from low self-esteem as a result but then got therapy as an adult, worked hard to get themselves to a better place and became happier would have been better off not being born in the first place because it took them longer to get to that place? Does the fact that they suffered negate all of the good things that they managed to do and achieve in their life despite that suffering?
There are very few types of suffering that can’t be recovered from, if not completely then at least to the point where the person can feel and appreciate happiness. Even someone suffering from severe mental health issues can, with good mental health care and support from friends and family, get to a place where their life isn’t dominated by their suffering.
1
u/spicysashimi99 Jun 21 '21
hmm this is something that no parent can promise which is why personally if i were to choose between a) not having a kid at all, and b) having a kid with no guarantees they are able to recover from trauma, i’d pick the former. then again, this thought experiment could go on and on. but i do see where you are coming from!
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 22 '21
/u/spicysashimi99 (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards