On some level, everything anyone ever does is selfish, yes. Sometimes it takes a few layers to get to it, but it is always there.
The shittier your existence, the more kids you will have. If you live as a subsistence farmer in a terrible place without reliable food, water, security, or other needs, you’re probably going to have like 7+ kids on average. Part of the reason you do this is because they serve as an unpaid labor force to make your life better. You’re creating a lot of new entites that did not have to exist and did not have to suffer in order to make your life a little better.
But when people improve their conditions in life, when their country becomes rich and prosperous and has food, water, security, medicine, abundance - and you could raise kids in much better conditions that are likely to lead to much less suffering - then suddenly people can’t even have kids at the replacement rate. At that point kids are a drag on their economic situation, and people stop having them.
It’s one of the cruellist, most suffering-inducing things that the human race does, and it’s nearly universal. No one is thinking about the greater good when they have kids - whether the entities they created will suffer more than they benefit, or about the future demographics of their society - they either do it to improve their life through low cost labor and a more robust family unit, or they do it from vanity when they think that the world needs a few more of themselves running around.
The only people in the world who are parents for altruistic reasons are adoptive parents. They didn’t create any new entities to suffer in our world, and only sought to improve the life of one who was already created. But they’re a tiny, tiny minority because most people would never consider adoption - it goes against the vanity of wanting more of yourself in the world.
So yes, in almost all cases, selfish.
If there is a “being” that is being forced to exist without a choice, it’s going to come into existence at some point in time. It will then experience pleasure and pain relative to the nature of its existence and life experiences. Yes having a child is selfish like pretty much any other act, but that selfish doesn’t equal bad. Your position strikes me as irrational as saying it’s a moral/ethical duty to have children so that you can ensure this “being” who does not yet exist can experience pleasure.
Wow. This belief surprises me. I guess I can see how there might be a component of every action that is for one’s own benefit, but I think there are plenty of actions out there that are done primarily for the benefit they provide to other people. For example, a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his squadmates, or a husband shielding his wife from the Colorado movie theater shooter’s rampage. Maybe there’s a tiny fraction of his motivation based on the posthumous adulation he’s likely to receive, but I think the majority of his motivation is to protect the person(s) he’s dying protecting.
Are you guys saying that you think everyone who ever jumped on a grenade did so primarily for the benefits they’d accrue personally?
They did so because saving their friends made them feel good.
No to the opening question.
At least, not always. Having a kid when you don’t have the skills, time or money to raise one is, IMO, selfish. However most parents genuinely try.
There is such a strong biological impulse to have kids. Whether this presents itself purely as sex drive, or a longing for companionship with the opposite sex, or a genuine longing for offspring, it is almost universal. Yes you can attempt to override it, via imperfect contraception, or fighting your instincts, but biology often catches up anyway.
So if something is biologically determined, can it be called selfish or otherwise? I don’t think so. The truth is that many don’t have a choice.
Yup, I realized this when I was about thirteen (I still remember the moment, mowing the yard under the sweetgum tree), and it bothered me a lot for a few years, until I had the follow-up epiphany: and that’s okay.
People act selfishly in every moment in every decision. All that means is that when you’re judging whether an act is good, whether it’s fundamentally selfish isn’t a relevant part of the moral calculus. You gotta look at other factors.
So nobody does anything that makes them feel bad?
Sure, in the long run. But at the time the decision was made, the foreseeable goods outweighed the foreseeable bads.
Just about everything we do is self-serving to a certain degree. But I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong being “self-serving”.
Foreseeable goods does not mean benefiting that person. Nobody does anything that benefits society but hurts themselves? Or is that a selfish act too?
Does it not make one feel good to benefit society?
I would hope so. But then, nobody could really “sacrifice” anything since they are doing it for selfish reasons that make themselves feel good.
“Sacrifice” is still entirely possible. If sacrificing something for some other purpose makes you feel better than if you didn’t.
This is more of what I’m getting at, that by making more you are perpetuating the suffering that goes on in the world. You are bringing a child into a life filled with suffering with no guarantee that things work out.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/09844…_1493915769718
This book also lists some of the proof you might be looking for, since you keep asking.
The point is that since when we are alive we try to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure, then never having existed to begin with is supposedly the most moral decision since you prevent them from experiencing any pain and they aren’t denied any pleasure. The link I posted about the reddit explains this, as long as there is some suffering in the world it is immoral to have kids.
You keep saying that but it still isn’t true.
If you want to avoid taxes (suffering), you could not work (not exist). You won’t have any money (joy), but you’ll have successfully avoided paying taxes (avoided suffering). As long as there are any taxes (suffering), it is best to choose not work (not exist).
It is classic all-or-nothing thinking.
But that isn’t the same situation. If they were never born then they would never have to deal with work, taxes, food, or anything else. It’s total prevention of suffering, the ultimate gain.
Who do we blame for the worthless definition of “selfishness” that means “anything that benefits you or can be argued to benefit you or you thought might benefit you but didn’t or would benefit you if you weren’t dead as a result of doing what you just did”? Ayn Rand, or did it predate her?
Surely a more useful definition of “selfishness” includes “at the expense of others”, or why even use the term at all?