No, it doesn’t work that way. Opposites of vices are not automatically virtues, quite often they are just a different vice. And the opposite of conception would be killing in general, not murder.
No. your god is nonexistent, and as typically portrayed incredibly evil. We certainly shouldn’t do anything in your demon-god’s “glory”. Worship is twisted, self hateful grovelling and not remotely desirable. And just being born doesn’t mean you’ll get “love, kindness, pleasure” it can mean that you’ll just live a life filled with nothing but suffering, abuse, and despair.
No, that is not logic. I’m not seeing a well-crafted argument here, and your premises are highly questionable. I would say that saving a life, not conceiving a new life, is the opposite of taking a life. There’s room for debate on that point, but I suspect more people would agree with me than you here. It also seems obvious that the opposite of something bad is not always something good. For instance, it would be bad to starve someone until they were dangerously underweight, but it would also be bad to force feed them until they were dangerously overweight.
Beyond that, I agree with Diogenes the Cynic that conception (fertilization) itself does not carry any moral weight. People can want to conceive, or want to avoid conceiving, but unless you’re talking about in-vitro fertilization then no one has conscious control over whether a sperm and egg will meet up. Plenty of couples want to conceive but are unable to do so. Others conceive even though they’ve taken steps to avoid this.
To call the whole sperm fertilizes egg thing “moral” is like saying it’s moral to win the lottery. People can take their chances (and the odds are much better than winning a jackpot with a scratch-off ticket), but if you’re doing things the old-fashioned way then there are no guarantees what the result will be. Even in-vitro fertilization isn’t 100% effective in terms of actually leading to a live birth. Is the opposite of tuna salad chicken salad, or salmon?
ETA:
I’d say the opposite of conception is simply not conceiving, but the whole opposite thing is rather messy. I’m thinking of that *Seinfeld *episode where George and Jerry disagreed about what the opposite of George’s usual lunch order would be.
It increases joy for who? The parents? so what? How does increasing the parents’ joy reduce suffering?
If they do, then they will be doing a moral good, but it’s their acts which would have moral value, not the act of conceiving and birthing them.
How is asking you to support a premise nihilistic? You have proposed that perpetuating the human species is morally necessary. I’m just asking you why. That is not a nihilistic question, nor would it be an invalid question even if it were.
If the human species were to become extinct through lack of reproduction (which, by the way, is highly unlikely), then why do you believe that would be a bad thing? A bad thing for who?
Qin, you are such a smart kid. Scratch that: you are a smart human. I want to let you in on something: there is no justice in this world. Bullies get away with bullying. Burglers get away with theft. Pedophiles get away with pedophilia. Rapists get away with rape. And sweet, smart, pretty girls are occasionally fooled by those with apparently bad intent.
I’m sorry. Criminals do, on occasion: repent. But generally: it’s a crap shoot. Some people are caught and punished; smart criminals are innovators and find a way to get around the system.
The rules and mores in the Good Book (depending on which section you choose yours from) are pretty cool, and work in some circles. But people are imperfect, biological entities and the opposite of divine. Give us a break. Give yourself a break. We are as God made us. If we have half the genetic code that makes a really great child and we meet another with the complementary code: that is an awesome event and worth of pride. But imperfect, unplanned children are also worthy of love. Motherless or fatherless children: worthy of love. Children who test boundaries: worthy of love. There is no perfect formula, and any god who expects us to figure it out: is unkind, and disconnected.
So yeah: sometimes the child of a loving union with ethical, responsible parents is a Very Good Thing. But the majority of children in the world, including myself, are imperfect. Afterthoughts; products of love, or lust, or rape. Accidents. And we are no less human and no less worthy of respect than the child of your favorite man of God.
Breeding in itself: is not divine, or noble, or something to aspire to. It is a natural function of biology, and it often results in a child. That child may grow to be Tenzin Gyatso. That child may grow to be John Wayne Gacy. Please read a bit about the strict upbringing of some serial killers. You may find that those with tough restrictions rebel in terrible ways. You may find that people with some freedom to learn and grow become incredibly compassionate human beings.
The children themselves, if they are in a fairly comfortable environment will experience joy.
[/QUOTE]
Even if you’re not religious, it would be a bad thing for humans and as a member of the species it would not be in our interest to let humanity go extinct. Plus we as far as we know are the most superior type of mortals in the universe and thus we are the carriers of civilization.
Thank you for the post. However I wouldn’t say children are “afterthoughts” of sex. Most births in the West at least are nowadays “planned” in the sense that the couple decides they want a kid. And I haven’t said anything about the upbringing of kids.
Thank you for the post. However I wouldn’t say children are “afterthoughts” of sex. Most births in the West at least are nowadays “planned” in the sense that the couple decides they want a kid. And I haven’t said anything about the upbringing of kids.
[/QUOTE]
Cite that “most” are wanted? I can guarantee that at least 2 unplanned, unwanted pregancies occurred in the comfortable, two income home of educated persons diligent about birth control. I’m afraid your “most” is misinformed at worst; optimistic at best. Infertile couples longing for children find getting pregnant difficult; fertile couples trying to avoid pregnancy are often less successful.
It isn’t possible to determine that each of these children were unwanted and unplanned for a life in Christian service, but it is likely that no forethought was employed about children at all. Sex feels good, because sex is the mechanism which drives procreation. The product is often an afterthought. You can search stats yourself: unwed pregnancy 2010/ unwed mothers 2010/ unplanned pregnancy 2010/ abortions 2010
“Most” is an interesting term. If you mean, more than 50%, then yes, you’re right. But there are still a whole lot of unplanned, *unwanted *pregnancies out there - 33% of pregnancies are unwanted, and lots of them happen to people who will not abort or adopt, so there are a lot of unwanted *children *out there, too.
In an overpopulated, resource constrained world, one less child is a wonderful thing. If we were living in an anime apocalypse, one additional happy child would be preferred. But we are not. Either way, people will respond to biological imperatives. But methinks a world population below 5 billion is superior to something above that. It would be better to focus our resources, love and efforts on fewer kids.
“It would not be in our interest to cease reproduction altogether” is a very different thing from “Conception is the most moral act possible.”
I’m going to ask you flat out here, are you building up to something with this “conception is the most moral act” business? Because frankly, this is such a stupid position to take that I have a hard time believing there’s not something else behind it. It also reminds me an awful lot of things I’ve heard from other people who were trying to advance certain ideas about the proper role of women or the morality of homosexuality.
Human civilization has led to the total extinction of countless other species, and if we ever move on to other planets we will almost certainly continue to wipe out various other forms of life. I’m not in PETA or anything, some poor cow died to give me the leather shoes I’m wearing right now, but let’s not kid ourselves about the role humans play in the universe. Most of the other living things on Earth today would be better off without us, and there are plenty more who are already gone because of us.
I’m curious where this is going too. Is it “pedophilia is moral as long as the kiddies are old enough to make babies” or maybe “monogamy is immoral because it impedes breeding”. Those would be fun positions to argue; however, I suspect the gotcha is the more mundane “contraception is immoral” or “abortion is immoral” or “homosexuality is immoral”.
Bringing joy to another person is usually a good thing. If you have to create that person to bring them joy in the first place, that’s neutral. Feeding a hungry person is a good thing, but it would be ridiculous to say that having a child is a good thing because it allows you to feed a hungry person. The need wouldn’t exist if the child didn’t exist.
Since God and The Elect are made up, this doesn’t factor in to the matter.
Ehh, only if you’re including the oceans andeven there, nowhere escapes our reach.
And no, saving a life is a better fit for the opposite of murder than conceiving one. So that would be the “most moral” act by that sort of absurd calculus.
Just having a child is morally neutral, it depends on the circumstances of the birth and the predicted and actual future actions of that child, whether that total life ends up being a nett good or bad one. If you have to do that sort of calculation, which I don’t.
And even if I did, something as essentially passive as conception is exactly the kind of action that slave morality would teach us is the greatest good, not the vibrant, dynamic act of saving a life. It’s a signal of ressentiment that the best way you can see to “balance” a murder is by the essentially passive-aggressive act of having a child.
Understand, I’m not condoning murder, but from a morality viewpoint, it is, at least, a vital, decisive act, one that cuts the actor off from herd morality (in a way that e.g. killing in warfare doesn’t). Yet there could be few acts as bound in following herd morality as *mindlessly *adding to the herd.
Note, it is entirely possible to make of child-bearing a vital, decisive act. But that wasn’t the type of child-bearing the OP advocated as a moral good. Instead, it was precisely the herd-increasing slave-mentality type … “Advance to glory for God” indeed. There’s glory for you.