If we buy your argument, here, then the only moral action we can take is to eat a gun. But then, if we do that, people who care about us will feel bad, and we’re morally responsible for having inflicted that pain on them, so we can’t kill ourselves, either. You’ve managed to set up a situation where any action, or inaction is immoral. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Congratulations. You’ve invented a philosophy in which mere existence is immoral.
No, the OP is not the only one who thinks like this.
I too have often wondered about the moral dilemma of bring a child into this world without knowing how things will turn out.
Barring parents under really shitty circumstances just having kids “because”, I wouldn’t label most parents evil.
But there is IMO and interesting mix of selflessness and selfishness when adults choose to have children.
“Please tell me I’m a genius for asking if it’s possible that I’m just a brain in a jar and nobody can prove I’m not.”
Here is another argument against the OP.
The vast majority of people would rather live than die. So it would be wrong of me to capriciously deny someone the ability to be alive rather than never having existed.
But of course there’s no way to bring every single possible sperm/egg pair into conception, nor is there even a way to make sure each individual sperm and each individual egg participates in a conception. (If we could do so and did, we’d probably be creating a pretty hellish world thereby). So what can we do to maximize the value found in people’s preference for living over never having lived? We can do what we can to make sure that the lives we do create are of the sort that find themselves happy to exist.
So, we keep having babies, but judiciously. And yes, we risk creating some bad lives, but if we’re doing our job right we’ll create a lot more good lives than bad lives. If the bad lives wish to never have been born, they can take the responsibility for suicide onto themselves.
I think the OP’s reaction is shock brought about by her sudden realization of the precariousness of life.
By her own admission, she’s had a pretty happy life that’s been free from major trauma. But now that she’s entering adulthood she realizes that her experience is not universal. There are lots of people who have crappy, horrible lives. And often it’s through no fault of their own. They just got a bad throw of the dice.
So she’s hit with the sudden realization that her life could very easily have turned out awful. In fact, because she still has so much of it ahead of her, it might still turn out awful. And there’s no way to be absolutely sure that it won’t.
Imagine that you’re riding in the back of an RV. You’re watching TV and having a snack and not paying much attention to what the driver is doing. Then after a few hours you walk up front and look out the windshield and discover, to your horror, that you’re driving on a narrow mountain road with yawning chasms on either side. The whole time you were relaxing and enjoying yourself, you were moments away from absolute tragedy and you never knew!
“What are you thinking!” You might shout at the driver. “Why did you take this road?! I thought I was safe! But actually you’ve put me in horrible danger!”
The answer is, that the driver took the road because there was no other road to take. The universe wants us all dead. Suffering and horror is something that we keep at bay only by working very hard against it, by keeping our hands on the wheel and our eyes on the curving road ahead. Babies keep being born because otherwise there’s nothing at all, not even a chance of happiness.
So, lankyBlonde, if you’re still reading, my advice to you is to learn to enjoy the ride. Be glad you’re making the trip in a nice RV instead of a rickety donkey cart. Learn how to steer to keep yourself as safe as possible. Try to help those who have trouble staying on the road. And mourn the unlucky ones, who, through no fault of their own, went over the edge.
Nice post, HamsterKing.
Damn.
Thread’s over. OP, this is your answer. And for real, look into Buddhism. Even if you don’t practice it, I think it will comfort you to know how many other people have dealt with these questions.
Given the OP’s recurrent announcements that s/he is good looking and going to a great college etc, maybe it was a really elaborate set up for a stealth brag thread.
Because if everyone adopted your viewpoint, then soon no one would exist. The question of whether or not to bring someone into existence is very different from the question of whether or not to sign them up for an experiment.
In any case, I’m broadly in agreement with the many posters who have told you to get over it and grow up.
If that was the case you would never have posted a thread this painfully devoid of debate. Life is to be experienced with all it’s ups and downs. Most people wait until they hit the down side to vent over it.
So either we’re being punked by an adolescent prank or you could benefit from help regarding a general fear of everything.
HamsterKing, that was superb. Thank you.
It may have been possible to live an isolated life hundreds of years ago but it’s not realistic to live in such a complete vacuum today. It’s not impossible but highly unlikely. Therefore the levels of anxiety exhibited should be addressed rather than a poorly framed debate about how everything sucks.
By luck, I just read two articles in the June 2013 edition of Harper’s Magazine which discuss these issues in different ways.
One article, Rebecca Solnit’s “The Separating Sickness,” is about leprosy, better referred to these days as Hansen’s disease. Solnit points out how this disease reminds us that pain – the literal sensation of pain – is precisely what keeps the non-leprous among us from unknowingly damaging our fingers, toes, noses, and eyes. Pain is awareness. Without it, we are in trouble.
The other, a review by Gary Greenberg of Andrew Solomon’s book Far from the Tree: Parents, Children, and the Search for Identity, discusses the evolving and sometimes contradictory approaches taken by members of the “communities” of the deaf, those with Asperger’s syndrome, and other conditions/“disabilities” toward their own (or their children’s) senses of belonging both to unique groups and to humanity in general (where not being so “afflicted” is perceived as the norm). For someone worried about creating a child who might suffer unduly for one reason or another, the book sounds like a good read, but be sure to read this review as well – Greenberg finds that Solomon gets a bit too dewy-eyed about the rapturous virtues of the radical acceptance approach by some disabled and their loved ones.
Yours isn’t a better analogy, because having a child is not the least bit like throwing a baby down a chute to land in either a shark tank or a “pot full of love and joy.”
Parents mostly (at least to the best of their abilities) love, nurture and protect the child, and try to teach her how to be safe, useful and happy.
If one moment of pain outweighs a lifetime of happiness, why doesn’t Lanky devote himself to the alleviation of the suffering of his fellow man? There’s a guy down the street from you who’s lonely. Go make friends with him. There’s a guy on the next block who’s hungry. Give him food. There’s a guy who’s in prison. Visit him. There’s a guy dressed in rags. Clothe him.
You’re obsessed with suffering. I understand that. So do something about it. Or wallow in it. If it was immoral for your parents to bring you into this world because you were sure to suffer pain, then why isn’t it immoral for you to not minister to your fellow sufferers?
Yes, I have found the same kind of responses here. In trying to understand tell me what would help you.
The OP might have a good philosophical subject to debate. However, if she truly hates her parents for simply bringing her into the world “without her permission” but lives a good life otherwise, then it turns from a simply philosophical subject to someone just being really ungrateful and hateful and quite pissy, which just brings the whole entire conversation to a screeching halt.
Of course, if the OP’s parents didn’t bring her into the world, she wouldn’t even have a chance to debate this little rant of hers.
The historical Buddha stated out his religious thinking with the question of suffering, or ‘dukkha’. Much like lankyBlonde, he had a charmed life, and then, to use The Hamster King’s metaphor, he got a view out the front window, and saw how much suffering there is in the world, and how precarious and transitory life and happiness are. You should try a Buddhism class at your university. It could change your life.
Ah. That makes it her fault.
I’d be inclined to pity them, but it’s usually a phase, and she might not even be sharing it. They’ve lived long enough to see many young people go through the revelation of mortality. They’re probably being indulgently understanding, which would be infuriating.
Or if you can’t let go of the anxiety, try Jainism.
We are made of
Meat.
There is no
Safety.
Does the Kaleidoscope
Mourn the
Passing Pattern?
Or
Rejoice
In the
Jeweled Dance?
(c) me
There are very few people that wouldn’t experience a total mental shutdown after only a year of torture as you describe it, let alone sixty.
Secondly, many people are uncomfortable with the idea of bringing children into the world we live in. A lot of people are like that; they share your way of thinking.