a) having and raising well-educated and well-brought-up kids is expensive, but in the end it is a fantastic investment (and from my own experience, makes one happy)
b) having and raising kids who will require charity to survive is cheap, and also immoral
Unfortunately, giving to famine relief promotes b).
The term “famine relief” in this context is unfortunate. Rachels is extending a 1972 paper of Peter Singer’s which used that term. The argument is much stronger if you mentally substitute “most effective charity” for “famine relief”.
Maybe...
a) having and raising well-educated and well-brought-up kids is expensive, but in the end it is a fantastic investment (and from my own experience, makes one happy) b) having and raising kids who will require charity to survive is cheap, and also immoral
Unfortunately, giving to famine relief promotes b).
The term “famine relief” in this context is unfortunate. Rachels is extending a 1972 paper of Peter Singer’s which used that term. The argument is much stronger if you mentally substitute “most effective charity” for “famine relief”.
You should repeat this at the top level. This changes things quite a bit.
Done.