Pre-industrial revolution, people had the expectation that their offspring would work for the family as soon as they were able, because that was the only way parents or children were going to survive. It seems a worthy trade for existing. Post-industrial revolution, I don’t think people consciously have children primarily for the benefit to themselves. There may be an underlying economic logic to it, but people think they are having children for the benefit of the children.
You haven’t really explained your ethical objection, so it is hard to reply to. I think one can make both contractarian (with a hypothetical choice between never existing at all, or an agreement to support one’s helpless parents after they have supported you when you were helpless, pretty much everyone would choose the latter, and we can therefore infer the consent of future children living in non-abusive families) and consequentialist (the norm of children supporting their parents in old age encourages bringing more children into existence, which is generally taken to be a good thing above the repugnant conclusion threshhold) arguments in favor of it.
My ethical objection has to do with the imposition of life on a being without their consent(which is impossible they don’t exist), with full knowledge of the inherent cruelties of both your existence and theirs. I think people have children for the same reason they’ve always had children, which is ensure genetic off spring anything else around it is consequential. I don’t want to have kids for example or at least not the conventional way it just seems altogether a cruel thing to do with current understanding of the world.
Pre-industrial revolution, people had the expectation that their offspring would work for the family as soon as they were able, because that was the only way parents or children were going to survive. It seems a worthy trade for existing. Post-industrial revolution, I don’t think people consciously have children primarily for the benefit to themselves. There may be an underlying economic logic to it, but people think they are having children for the benefit of the children.
You haven’t really explained your ethical objection, so it is hard to reply to. I think one can make both contractarian (with a hypothetical choice between never existing at all, or an agreement to support one’s helpless parents after they have supported you when you were helpless, pretty much everyone would choose the latter, and we can therefore infer the consent of future children living in non-abusive families) and consequentialist (the norm of children supporting their parents in old age encourages bringing more children into existence, which is generally taken to be a good thing above the repugnant conclusion threshhold) arguments in favor of it.
My ethical objection has to do with the imposition of life on a being without their consent(which is impossible they don’t exist), with full knowledge of the inherent cruelties of both your existence and theirs. I think people have children for the same reason they’ve always had children, which is ensure genetic off spring anything else around it is consequential. I don’t want to have kids for example or at least not the conventional way it just seems altogether a cruel thing to do with current understanding of the world.
Right I’m down 2 karma points with no explanation. Care to enlighten me?
Ya I’d still really like to know why what I’ve said is so harsh.