Why isn’t it more ethical to produce as many children as will fit in a female’s lifespan?
Rescuing lives in the third world is cheaper than getting children, if your goal is altruism. On the other hand altruism isn’t the only reason to get children.
If your goal isn’t altruism then why ask “Why isn’t it more ethical to produce as many children as will fit in a female’s lifespan?”. Simply get as many children as you want to have.
The “and” in my reply connects two separate conditions. It is possible that your goal is altruism but you don’t value people equally. The question of whether having many children is ethical could depend on exactly what factors you use to weigh your children over strangers.
It’s not practical in the short term. Long term, I think we should build Dyson spheres or whatever else it takes to make as many happy people as possible.
What do you mean by every possible human that could exist having moral value? If you think it’s bad to create them and then kill them, you’re already assigning moral value. We already seem to agree on the idea that creating and then killing a person and not creating a person are morally comparable and not of equal value. The only question is which is better.
I figure it’s better to live for the better part of a century than to not live at all.
So, every possible human that could exist has moral value? Why isn’t it more ethical to produce as many children as will fit in a female’s lifespan?
Rescuing lives in the third world is cheaper than getting children, if your goal is altruism. On the other hand altruism isn’t the only reason to get children.
If your goal is altruism, and you value all people equally, anyway. Not many people outside of here do.
If your goal isn’t altruism then why ask “Why isn’t it more ethical to produce as many children as will fit in a female’s lifespan?”. Simply get as many children as you want to have.
The “and” in my reply connects two separate conditions. It is possible that your goal is altruism but you don’t value people equally. The question of whether having many children is ethical could depend on exactly what factors you use to weigh your children over strangers.
This looks like one hell of an occasion for satisficing instead of optimizing.
I was being rhetorical. I don’t think there is any moral obligation for someone who never existed to exist.
It’s not practical in the short term. Long term, I think we should build Dyson spheres or whatever else it takes to make as many happy people as possible.
What do you mean by every possible human that could exist having moral value? If you think it’s bad to create them and then kill them, you’re already assigning moral value. We already seem to agree on the idea that creating and then killing a person and not creating a person are morally comparable and not of equal value. The only question is which is better.
No, I don’t think that an uncreated person has value. Why would it?
Or am I misinterpreting?