Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breeders are Evil!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Breeders are Evil!



    JUNE 6, 2010, 5:15 PM
    Should This Be the Last Generation?

    By PETER SINGER
    The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.

    Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult — for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally.

    All this suggests that we think it is wrong to bring into the world a child whose prospects for a happy, healthy life are poor, but we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence. This has come to be known among philosophers as “the asymmetry” and it is not easy to justify. But rather than go into the explanations usually proffered — and why they fail — I want to raise a related problem. How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world? Is the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today good enough to make this decision unproblematic, in the absence of specific knowledge that the child will have a severe genetic disease or other problem?

    If there were to be no future generations, there would be nothing for us to feel to guilty about. Is there anything wrong with this scenario?
    The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.

    Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.

    Erin Schell
    Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.

    Here is a thought experiment to test our attitudes to this view. Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

    So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!

    Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

    Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?

    I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?
    If we take Dr. Singer's position to be true, does these mean that homosexuals are a morally superior beings? Perhaps homosexuality is actually nature's way of reducing suffering. It may be that it is the way nature now intends for us. Of course, we must also consider that Ben may be doing the world a favor by behaving as he does.
    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    "Capitalism ho!"

  • #2
    No one is morally superior or morally inferior on the basis of his/her sexual orientation.
    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

    Comment


    • #3
      tl;dr?
      Indifference is Bliss

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MrFun View Post
        No one is morally superior or morally inferior on the basis of his/her sexual orientation.
        Indifference is Bliss

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MrFun View Post
          No one is morally superior or morally inferior on the basis of his/her sexual orientation.

          Agreed. It's the heteros that make the conscious choice not to breed that are morally superior.
          "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
          "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #6
            What the ****? Peter Singer has officially gone insane. This is the most retarded thing I've read of his and he's written plenty of retarded stuff in the past.

            The only redeeming thing is that in the last paragraph he's kind of like 'Just kidding. But it would be interesting, nonetheless, don't you agree?' Almost seems like a cop out. What was the point of the last several paragraphs and all your ruminating if you were just going to say "life is worth living", Singer?
            "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
            "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

            Comment


            • #7
              And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?


              continue the species
              discontinue PETER SINGER
              Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
              GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

              Comment


              • #8
                Horrible argument. First argues that a) pleasure is a product of "pollyannaism" and that b) not having kids would let us feel less guilty about our responsibilities to future generations so we could have more fun - but wouldn't any such fun be the very same "pollyannaism" that the article has already mentioned?
                "mono has crazy flow and can rhyme words that shouldn't, like Eminem"
                Drake Tungsten
                "get contacts, get a haircut, get better clothes, and lose some weight"
                Albert Speer

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MrFun View Post
                  No one is morally superior or morally inferior on the basis of his/her sexual orientation.
                  “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                  "Capitalism ho!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "get contacts, get a haircut, get better clothes, and lose some weight"
                    Albert Speer
                    Mono, how long ago was it that I said that?
                    "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
                    "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Peter Singer has officially gone insane.
                      Only now? Dude, Singer believes it's ok to kill kids up to the age of 3.
                      Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                      "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                      2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
                        Only now? Dude, Singer believes it's ok to kill kids up to the age of 3.
                        I'm sure he made a good argument
                        "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
                        "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As a "breeder" that has produced two children I feel I have done my part in balancing the interests of the economy and the future environment of the planet. So kindly all bugger off
                          You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Wezil View Post
                            Agreed. It's the heteros that make the conscious choice not to breed that are morally superior.
                            Okay, I suppose I can go with that.
                            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Flubber View Post
                              As a "breeder" that has produced two children I feel I have done my part in balancing the interests of the economy and the future environment of the planet. So kindly all bugger off
                              Studies have shown that to maintain the population each couple must have 2.12 children. We're still waiting for you to have that 0.12 child.
                              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X