Is having kids ethical?

I contend that life brings with it much suffering, and that for this reason to impose life on someone else and force that suffering upon them is unethical. There is good in life, but this good does not erase the bad. Even if someone “brings it on themselves” because of their own ignorance or inexperience, it is still the fault of whoever gave them life, because had they not done that, the person would not be experiencing that suffering.

That’s my opinion. I used to think having kids was ethical but I found this site which changed my whole opinion: http://moralchildfree.tripod.com

Not if you do it right;)

Is not having kids ethical? If we have any purpose here, it’s the survival of the species. If your kids don’t like it, they can always opt out.

We had a VERY long thread about this a while back… Can’t remember enough about it to search for it now, though. Someone out there must know what I’m talking about… (Or else they’re avoiding this thread precisely because of the previous one…)

That was a giant trolling trainwreck, or at least it turned into one. This one might not.
In response to the OP: My parents may have forced my life and thereby my suffering on me, but they also gave me the opportunity to experience joy, love, and friendship, not to mention deep-fried cheese curds. Any of these things are definitely worth whatever suffering I’ll have in this life.

I’m hoping someone would not seriously consider having kids because “they can always opt out.” Most people I know would be very upset if their kids committed suicide. Suicide doesn’t end pain, it multiplies it.

Finally, our purpose here is not to impose life on those who do not want it. There are so many things people can do with their life that don’t involve having kids. They can adopt kids who might otherwise not have parents, they can write symphonies and create great works of art, and they can do charity work to benefit those less fortunate. All of these things are much more worthwhile, in my opinion, then forcing life on someone who might not want it.

I’m glad you feel that way, but remember that had you not been created, you would not miss any of those things.

What kind of people do you hang around, such that you can say things like “impose life on those who do not want it.”? I’ve met people who have been through a lot of bad stuff, and none of them wished that they were dead. Quite the contrary – they did whatever they could to survive.

Therein lies the flaw in your reasoning. Prior to conception, there is no “someone” with unknown desires. Arguably, there is no “someone” until birth or viability outside the womb, but this isn’t an abortion thread.

Ultimately, the individual is responsible for his lot in life. There comes a point when you’ve got to stop blaming your parents and become an adult.

That position is called antinatalism. There are good arguments for it, and it tends to make people fairly uncomfortable when you flesh it out, but it doesn’t really mean much. Absent a big rock hitting the earth people aren’t going to stop breeding.

You can take it further, too. If you accept antinatalism you can argue that it would be moral to take active steps to cause the extinction of mankind. Because if we are allowed to continue our technological progress there is a risk, however slight, that humanity will colonize the stars. Think of the billions, possibly trillions of humans stretching out for 100 billion years into the future. That’s a lot of suffering that could be prevented if we act now.

I’ll be in my volcano lair.

This is not a flaw in my reasoning but evidence that my theory is right. I agree with you completely about their being no person prior to conception. You cannot know how anyone will feel about you having given them life. People who are never created never have to die, or experience any suffering at all.

This is not a point but an attempt to divert from the point. I’m not saying you should “blame your parents” for creating you, just that you should refrain from doing that which was done to you to someone else.

I’ve heard this point a lot (if life is so bad why don’t you kill everyone). I do not advocate killing living humans, because this is murder. What I am talking about is prevention. People who are never created don’t have to die. But everyone who is created will die at some point.

Just because people aren’t going to stop doing something doesn’t make it ethical. This is appeal to majority.

Do you wish you’d never been born? If the answer is no, then you’ve disproved your point. If the answer is yes, then you obviously decided that living is better than not living, since you’re still here. So again you’ve disproved your point.

What horrible thing has been done to me by virtue of my creation? I’ve got Life, I’ve got Liberty, and I pursue Happiness as often as possible. Not seeing that as a bad thing.

I see that the page linked to in the OP hasn’t been updated in 3 years - maybe the people responsible decided to have kids. :stuck_out_tongue:

While having kids opens them (and you) up to the possibility of suffering, not having them totally eliminates any chance of happiness. Isn’t that just as bad? Perhaps having kids is ethical if the parents are committed to providing a good and happy life for them.

I won’t presume to speak for Howie, but I took that post to mean that if the kids don’t like it, they have the option of not having kids of their own, opting out of perpetuating the species, as it were.

Besides, if parents feel the unendurable horror of a child committing suicide, according to your logic that is the fault of the parents’ parents, who by giving birth to them have doomed them to a life of suffering.

I don’t have children, and spay/neuter my cats. I am in 100% agreement with you in terms of preventing the birth of stray kittens who statistically will suffer greatly and die young. And I like your views on how those of us without children can contribute otherwise. But taken to its extreme, who would we do nice things/create great works of art/provide homes for, if we shut down reproduction completely?

Are you suggesting all reproduction stop, and we take care of what we have? I also see that you realize that human reproduction won’t stop despite your (and other organization’s) appeals. Is your suggestion that more of us reconsider the idea of having children, and instead work to take care of what we have?

I hope I’m coming across reasonably clearly. I disagree with your idea, despite not having children of my own, but find the idea of a reasoned debate appealing.

I could just as easily contend that life brings with it much joy and for this reason everyone should have as many children as possible to allow them to join the party.

Any real life is a mixture of both good and bad. Ignoring one to promote the other is a distortion.

Your second point does not make as much sense as you think. We humans have a strong self-preservation instinct which makes taking one’s own life very difficult, even if you absolutely believe not living would be better than living. Then there’s the afterlife issue, not to mention the issue of causing pain to the people around you by killing yourself.

If not for a) the fear of pain and not-quite-killing myself but winding up a cripple with an even *worse *life and b) the certitude that I’d break quite a few people’s hearts by jumping off a window I’d have offed myself a long, long time ago. Life, on average, sucks. A lot.
And you can certainly count me in the ranks of those who don’t wish to make another conscience have to go through it (well, that and I’d be a shitty father. But mostly that).

The argument doesn’t stand up. Sure there is suffering in life, but most people I know have much more happiness than suffering. Are you arguing that even the smallest amount of suffering outweighs an otherwise happy life? If not where is the balance?

I would also argue that some suffering is necessary to trully appreciate the joys of life.

If you have children knowing that their life will be constant suffering with very little happiness then, yes, I can see ethical implications. On the other hand, to make that judgement of other people is troublesome since the most obvious targets for such moralising would be the very poor of Africa and Asia. Are you arguing that they are somehow ethically culpable for reproducing?

So, are you advocating Human Extinction?

Why stop with humans. Animals also suffer. And plants and microbes might one day evolve to become sentient suffering beings, so it is best to nuke them too. In fact the only way to be sure is to nuke the planet from orbit.

Why then does the bad erase the good?