I’ll presumably have a family and bills, etc, and while I am perfectly happy to live on little myself, I know I will want my kids to have nice things. This is somewhat illogical, but I’m imperfect.
What’s illogical with that? (I’m asking because that’s exactly my position too, but I can’t see anything wrong with that.)
If you have utilitarian values, you shouldn’t value your kids any more than you would value anybody else. Therefore, you shouldn’t spend all your money on your children and probably shouldn’t have children altogether.
Of course, if you don’t have utilitarian values, then it wouldn’t be illogical (assuming either moral realism is false assuming or assuming moral realism is true but doesn’t forbid you from giving major preferential treatment to your children; the first of which seems a very reasonable assumption).
(The footnote isn’t called anywhere and I assume there’s a mis-formatted link in it.)
If you have utilitarian values, you shouldn’t value your kids any more than you would value anybody else. Therefore, you shouldn’t spend all your money on your children and probably shouldn’t have children altogether.
But if people-sufficiently-similar-to-me-to-decide-the-same-way did that, they would eventually go extinct (unless immortality is achieved very soon), which wouldn’t be a good thing (and might be already happening). (And this is before taking crazier decision-theoretical shit into account, which I’m still not sure how seriously I should take.¹)
You know, I noticed that rule consequentialism plus Darwinism could be taken to mean that I should have children long before I even knew rule consequentialism had a name (I thought of it as a steel-manning of the Golden Rule—not that I knew the word “steel-manning” either).
But if people-sufficiently-similar-to-me-to-decide-the-same-way did that, they would eventually go extinct
Only if they were really stupid. Following utilitarian values shouldn’t, all else being equal, lead to terrible consequences.
Making sure your kids have lots of neat stuff, as opposed to a merely good life, wouldn’t lead to extinction. And never having kids wouldn’t be a strategy you follow dogmatically—if too many people started doing it, it would no longer be a good idea.
~
(The footnote isn’t called anywhere and I assume there’s a mis-formatted link in it.)
Deleted. I had integrated the footnote into the text, but forgot to delete the remainder of the footnote.
Only if they were really stupid. Following utilitarian values shouldn’t, all else being equal, lead to terrible consequences.
(I was mostly thinking about the “and probably shouldn’t have children altogether” part rather than the “you shouldn’t spend all your money on your children” part.)
Making sure your kids have lots of neat stuff, as opposed to a merely good life,
In principle, I agree (and if/when I have children, I’m probably going to try to teach them to be as frugal as me), but there’s this issue that makes it hard to have children live a good life without having lots of neat stuff. (OTOH, I know someone whose parents made a point of not buying him expensive stuff just for signalling to his peers, and he doesn’t seem to be terribly maladjusted now that he’s in his twenties compared to other people in his demographics.)
Only if they were really stupid. Following utilitarian values shouldn’t, all else being equal, lead to terrible consequences.
(I was mostly thinking about the “and probably shouldn’t have children altogether” part rather than the “you shouldn’t spend all your money on your children” part.)
As I said, “never having kids wouldn’t be a strategy you follow dogmatically—if too many people started doing it, it would no longer be a good idea.”
Right now, I think money is better spent with first-order regard to utilitarian values on causes other than children. But I could see strong second-order reasons for children (keeping oneself motivated, some situations where the child could be a good successor, etc.). You could also not want to be utilitarian on this particular issue.
What’s illogical with that? (I’m asking because that’s exactly my position too, but I can’t see anything wrong with that.)
If you have utilitarian values, you shouldn’t value your kids any more than you would value anybody else. Therefore, you shouldn’t spend all your money on your children and probably shouldn’t have children altogether.
Of course, if you don’t have utilitarian values, then it wouldn’t be illogical (assuming either moral realism is false assuming or assuming moral realism is true but doesn’t forbid you from giving major preferential treatment to your children; the first of which seems a very reasonable assumption).
(The footnote isn’t called anywhere and I assume there’s a mis-formatted link in it.)
But if people-sufficiently-similar-to-me-to-decide-the-same-way did that, they would eventually go extinct (unless immortality is achieved very soon), which wouldn’t be a good thing (and might be already happening). (And this is before taking crazier decision-theoretical shit into account, which I’m still not sure how seriously I should take.¹)
You know, I noticed that rule consequentialism plus Darwinism could be taken to mean that I should have children long before I even knew rule consequentialism had a name (I thought of it as a steel-manning of the Golden Rule—not that I knew the word “steel-manning” either).
Only if they were really stupid. Following utilitarian values shouldn’t, all else being equal, lead to terrible consequences.
Making sure your kids have lots of neat stuff, as opposed to a merely good life, wouldn’t lead to extinction. And never having kids wouldn’t be a strategy you follow dogmatically—if too many people started doing it, it would no longer be a good idea.
~
Deleted. I had integrated the footnote into the text, but forgot to delete the remainder of the footnote.
(I was mostly thinking about the “and probably shouldn’t have children altogether” part rather than the “you shouldn’t spend all your money on your children” part.)
In principle, I agree (and if/when I have children, I’m probably going to try to teach them to be as frugal as me), but there’s this issue that makes it hard to have children live a good life without having lots of neat stuff. (OTOH, I know someone whose parents made a point of not buying him expensive stuff just for signalling to his peers, and he doesn’t seem to be terribly maladjusted now that he’s in his twenties compared to other people in his demographics.)
As I said, “never having kids wouldn’t be a strategy you follow dogmatically—if too many people started doing it, it would no longer be a good idea.”
Right now, I think money is better spent with first-order regard to utilitarian values on causes other than children. But I could see strong second-order reasons for children (keeping oneself motivated, some situations where the child could be a good successor, etc.). You could also not want to be utilitarian on this particular issue.