Justify procreation, please. [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

RJT

11-05-2007, 11:40 PM

If there is no God, then I postulate it is immoral to procreate. (Immoral is not the exact word, because given no God there really is no Absolute Morality. But, you get the idea.)

Having been born, I wouldn’t trade off, don’t get me wrong. But, why would one subjugate innocent children to a life of suffering that goes along with the joys in life? As I posted in a previous thread, I doubt if anyone is truly happy. (If I am wrong about that then, I must be wrong here. So, all you have to do is prove that happiness is possible.)

Atheist talk about spending their lives trying to cure cancer and other pseudo-altruistic goals. Yet, they think nothing of bringing children into this world and laying such burdens on them. Talk about guilt trips religious folk impose on their young!

Atheists should stop wasting their time attempting to end Religion and start spending more energy educating people towards this end. Other than ego, there is no need for procreation. (Unless of course, you believe Evolution is God.)

luckyme

11-05-2007, 11:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, they think nothing of bringing children into this world and laying such burdens on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, we bring adults into the world, they just have to pass through the larval stage of childhood.

luckyme

Sephus

11-05-2007, 11:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Immoral is not the exact word, because given no God there really is no Absolute Morality

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't make the word any less appropriate.

[ QUOTE ]
Having been born, I wouldn’t trade off, don’t get me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

well there we go then.

RJT

11-05-2007, 11:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet, they think nothing of bringing children into this world and laying such burdens on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, we bring adults into the world, they just have to pass through the larval stage of childhood.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

All the more reason why my point is valid.

RJT

11-05-2007, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Immoral is not the exact word, because given no God there really is no Absolute Morality

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't make the word any less appropriate.

[ QUOTE ]
Having been born, I wouldn’t trade off, don’t get me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

well there we go then.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn’t work that way.

Lestat

11-06-2007, 12:11 AM

Talk about guilt trips religious folk impose on their young! 

Indeed. No offense, but you sound a little like the irritable teenager who cries to their parent, "I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN!".

Life (while not the miracle you would claim it is), is the most precious thing attainable! So very rare. Healthy people who are able to experience life are truly fortunate. Why wouldn't anyone want to give the gift of life?!!

And what's all this talk about suffering and doubting that anyone is truly happy? There are many, many, many pleasures in life.

Oh, and then there's that Darwinian explanation as well.

chezlaw

11-06-2007, 12:12 AM

Being truly happy has nothing to do with it. Its moral to have children if its reasonable to believe that if they had been given a choice they would rather have been had than not had. That's a pretty reasonable thing for many to believe.

Maybe from an environmental point of view its immoral but probably okay if you just have one and eat/drink/smoke a lot.

chez

Bill Haywood

11-06-2007, 12:13 AM

It will make sense if you start taking antidepressants.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no God, then I postulate it is immoral to procreate. (Immoral is not the exact word, because given no God there really is no Absolute Morality. But, you get the idea.)

Having been born, I wouldn’t trade off, don’t get me wrong. But, why would one subjugate innocent children to a life of suffering that goes along with the joys in life? As I posted in a previous thread, I doubt if anyone is truly happy. (If I am wrong about that then, I must be wrong here. So, all you have to do is prove that happiness is possible.)

Atheist talk about spending their lives trying to cure cancer and other pseudo-altruistic goals. Yet, they think nothing of bringing children into this world and laying such burdens on them. Talk about guilt trips religious folk impose on their young!

Atheists should stop wasting their time attempting to end Religion and start spending more energy educating people towards this end. Other than ego, there is no need for procreation. (Unless of course, you believe Evolution is God.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat

11-06-2007, 12:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Immoral is not the exact word, because given no God there really is no Absolute Morality

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't make the word any less appropriate.

[ QUOTE ]
Having been born, I wouldn’t trade off, don’t get me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

well there we go then.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn’t work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with Sephus. This statement: Having been born, I wouldn’t trade off, don’t get me wrong.

Pretty much refutes what you're attempting to imply, don't you think?

drzen

11-06-2007, 12:17 AM

I agree. Darwin made me do it.

Philo

11-06-2007, 12:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]

As I posted in a previous thread, I doubt if anyone is truly happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have a rather idiosyncratic notion of happiness.

furyshade

11-06-2007, 12:36 AM

if we talk about a purely logical reason to procreate, it is a natural version of social security. if you have healthy kids, you guarantee that there will be someone to take care of you when you cant take care of yourself. there are other reasons but this is the emotionless version

Phil153

11-06-2007, 12:46 AM

You have an awfully depressing view of life, RJT. I understand that you can't imagine purpose or positivity or meaningful morality without God, but that's your own failing, not anyone else's.

[ QUOTE ]
But, why would one subjugate innocent children to a life of suffering that goes along with the joys in life?

[/ QUOTE ]
Put another way: why would subjugate innocent children to a life of joy that goes along with the suffering in life? See the difference that makes?

If you need God, fine. But I find your whole premise that life isn't worth living without God rather uncreative. I don't know how old you are, but I suggest spending some time around young people and having some fun - you might get a different perspective on how people can feel about life.

Phil153

11-06-2007, 12:49 AM

And to answer your question, here's my justification:

I have faith that I can have a child who will be happy that he/she was born, who will have meaningful experiences and friendships, and who would rather be alive than not.

vhawk01

11-06-2007, 01:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And to answer your question, here's my justification:

I have faith that I can have a child who will be happy that he/she was born, who will have meaningful experiences and friendships, and who would rather be alive than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is a legitimate justification even if 50+1% of people are not "truly happy" or whatever RJT was saying.

RJT

11-06-2007, 01:01 AM

This has nothing to do with depression. (For the record, I am probably in the prime of life and am enjoying it.)

The choice isn’t whether one would choose to have been born. (Other than suicidal folk, I doubt there are many would say no to it.)

[ QUOTE ]
Life (while not the miracle you would claim it is), is the most precious thing attainable! So very rare. Healthy people who are able to experience life are truly fortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If life is the most precious thing attainable what is the second most precious thing?
Life isn’t attainable.
What about unhealthy people?

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't anyone want to give the gift of life?!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making a value judgment. You are imposing your views and deciding that any random child you beget should hold this view. What should be the consequences to you, if one of those children actually would have chosen not to be born? Who are you to put the onus them?

[ QUOTE ]
Its moral to have children if its reasonable to believe that if they had been given a choice they would rather have been had than not had. That's a pretty reasonable thing for many to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you want to re-read what you just wrote?

Now, regarding happiness. I suppose we should first define it – probably not possible. But, to me I find it hard to juxtapose theoretical happiness and posting on internet message boards. To me a truly happy person is not one who spends his time in such a manner. It just doesn’t ring true.

Asked another way – do you think that truly happy people pass time in the manner most of us do? Most of us have similar lives. We work, play poker, read, go to the movies, make love, have a nice dinner and drinks, whatever. Sure, we have good lives. Life is great. But, we do pass time. Happiness is not about passing time. I find it hard to include the words “passing time” in ny definitions of Happiness.

Maybe I am idealistic and hold the word up to a higher esteem than I should.

Getting back to my original point. Try not to get too pragmatic with it. This is a theoretical point. Empiricism has nothing to do with any of it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you need God, fine. But I find your whole premise that life isn't worth living without God rather uncreative. I don't know how old you are, but I suggest spending some time around young people and having some fun - you might get a different perspective on how people can feel about life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, I shouldn’t have started with anything to do with God. Let me restate my point. “It is immoral to procreate.”

RJT

11-06-2007, 01:02 AM

Guys, this is the Philosophy forum, not the Psychology forum.

vhawk01

11-06-2007, 01:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, this is the Philosophy forum, not the Psychology forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so as long as everyone is miserable all the time, and that the small joys they have in life <<<<< all the sorrow and pain (which is practically a certainty to be false due to the way the human psyche is structured, cognitive dissonance and all that) then its at least selfish. Not immoral, just selfish. Since of course, *I* get tons of joy out of having kids. Or at least I think I do.

madnak

11-06-2007, 01:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a theoretical point.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no point. You haven't presented any sort of dilemma. You've just rambled incoherently.

bunny

11-06-2007, 01:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no God, then I postulate it is immoral to procreate. (Immoral is not the exact word, because given no God there really is no Absolute Morality. But, you get the idea.)

Having been born, I wouldn’t trade off, don’t get me wrong. But, why would one subjugate innocent children to a life of suffering that goes along with the joys in life? As I posted in a previous thread, I doubt if anyone is truly happy. (If I am wrong about that then, I must be wrong here. So, all you have to do is prove that happiness is possible.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I would subjugate an innocent child to the suffering of life if the joy was greater. I think you are wrong to suggest happiness is impossible - first counterexample, any atheist who is choosing to live rather than "end the suffering".

RJT

11-06-2007, 01:19 AM

Let’s put it this another way. It is a selfless act to not have children.

Intentional procreating is all about ego, self gratification (not in the literal act of procreation, although obviously it is in that way, too) in enjoying what one creates, and subjecting one’s personal views on the unborn. (Dawkins term the Selfish Gene comes to mind here – again not literally speaking, but as an analogy.)

Not having children is a selfless act.

How one views selfishness, ego, selflessness and the like relative to Morality and Virtue is how one views my point. There is no right or wrong (because there is no Absolute Morality.) I think it is interesting though, to put it all in perspective.

Fwiw, I find selflessness a Virtue.

Didn't read your one post vhawk - I see you agree with me.

vhawk01

11-06-2007, 01:26 AM

Yeah except if I'm really kickass. Which I am. Thus, having lots of kids = selfless.

RJT

11-06-2007, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And to answer your question, here's my justification:

I have faith that I can have a child who will be happy that he/she was born, who will have meaningful experiences and friendships, and who would rather be alive than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, it is all about passing on your own views. That is a big part (but not the only part) of my point.

chezlaw

11-06-2007, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not having children is a selfless act.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not having children because you don't want them is selfless? I think thats only true in the sense that not doing something you don't want to isn't really an act at all. Or is this some idea about people who want children but deliberately don't have them. Are we back to the altruism debate?

Where I agree with you is that people don't have children out of consideration for the children. They have them because they want kids and there's no good reason not to have them.

chez

vhawk01

11-06-2007, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not having children is a selfless act.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not having children because you don't want them is selfless? I think thats only true in the sense that not doing something you don't want to isn't really an act at all. Or is this some idea about people who want children but deliberately don't have them. Are we back to the altruism debate?

Where I agree with you is that people don't have children out of consideration for the children. They have them because they want kids and there's no good reason not to have them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously guys, I'm really awesome, I dont want to have kids but I owe it to your kids.

RJT

11-06-2007, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah except if I'm really kickass. Which I am. Thus, having lots of kids = selfless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, didn't read your post when I wrote my last one. Good to see we are on the same page.

luckyme

11-06-2007, 01:29 AM

vhawk01

11-06-2007, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah except if I'm really kickass. Which I am. Thus, having lots of kids = selfless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, didn't read your post when I wrote my last one. Good to see we are on the same page.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since everyone feels the same as me, having kids = moral, the exact opposite of your point.

RJT

11-06-2007, 01:33 AM

RJT

11-06-2007, 01:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no God, then I postulate it is immoral to procreate. (Immoral is not the exact word, because given no God there really is no Absolute Morality. But, you get the idea.)

Having been born, I wouldn’t trade off, don’t get me wrong. But, why would one subjugate innocent children to a life of suffering that goes along with the joys in life? As I posted in a previous thread, I doubt if anyone is truly happy. (If I am wrong about that then, I must be wrong here. So, all you have to do is prove that happiness is possible.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I would subjugate an innocent child to the suffering of life if the joy was greater. I think you are wrong to suggest happiness is impossible - first counterexample, any atheist who is choosing to live rather than "end the suffering".

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about Happiness. Obviously, those of us who aren’t depressed are happy.

I am not saying it is impossible to attain Happiness (although, I think it is impossible – just not willing to lay it on the line). I am saying I have never met one who has attained it. I certainly wouldn’t buy that one says he has attained Happiness if he spends some of his life on message boards or playing poker – as we all do. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

RJT

11-06-2007, 01:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah except if I'm really kickass. Which I am. Thus, having lots of kids = selfless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, didn't read your post when I wrote my last one. Good to see we are on the same page.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since everyone feels the same as me, having kids = moral, the exact opposite of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I thought you originally said it was selfish. (I then read your other post and read it as selfish again ,when you had changed it to selfess. Sorry for the confusion.)

madnak

11-06-2007, 01:54 AM

Very few people base their moral standard on selfishness. Particularly by your definition, in which any person taking an action for his own benefit is being "selfish" and immoral. This is a twisted view and I don't for one second think you apply it in any consistent way. Though it does have the unique feature of suggesting that anyone who isn't completely miserable must be immoral.

I certainly don't believe there's anything immoral about doing something because it makes you happy - it's only considered selfish if it causes others harm. But wait, you think it's impossible for anyone to do something because it makes them happy.

madnak

11-06-2007, 01:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Let&#8217;s put it this another way. It is a selfless act to not have children.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should get in touch with InTheDark. You two would make a great pair.

It's comforting to know that I'm being selfless by avoiding the responsibility of children. Damn, I'm such a nice guy.

bunny

11-06-2007, 02:02 AM

Ok I'm having a bad day. First I couldnt understand luckyme and now you... /images/graemlins/confused.gif
Can you explain what you're talking about, because these dont make sense to me:

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying it is impossible to attain Happiness (although, I think it is impossible – just not willing to lay it on the line).

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not saying it is impossible to attain happiness, although you think it is impossible. Doesnt that mean you are saying it is impossible?

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I have never met one who has attained it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet before you said that those of us who arent depressed are happy. Havent we "attained happiness" if we're happy?

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly wouldn’t buy that one says he has attained Happiness if he spends some of his life on message boards or playing poker – as we all do. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I've attained it, I think. I have a sickeningly idyllic life. And part of why I'm happy is because I post here.

I really dont get it. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

madnak

11-06-2007, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am talking about Happiness. Obviously, those of us who aren&#8217;t depressed are happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said before that you aren't talking about depression. This statement contradicts that one.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying it is impossible to attain Happiness (although, I think it is impossible &#8211; just not willing to lay it on the line).

[/ QUOTE ]

And what, pray tell, is this great "Happiness" that is completely impossible? If it has never existed, where did the concept come from? Or can only God be happy, is that where you're going?

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I have never met one who has attained it. I certainly wouldn&#8217;t buy that one says he has attained Happiness if he spends some of his life on message boards or playing poker &#8211; as we all do. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Because nobody could ever be happy playing poker, or posting on a messageboard. No, a happy person would just float around in lotus position and appreciate the vibrations of the universe. Since nobody does that, nobody is happy. QED. Glad we got that cleared up. Or do you think we're posting here just to kill time? Newsflash - I'm posting here because I enjoy it, because it makes me happy. If I stopped enjoying it, I would stop posting - this actually happened a few months ago. I don't come here because I'm under some obligation.

But don't mind me, God forbid I question your wisdom and your ability to know what other people like and dislike. I'm sure you know what makes me happy much better than I do.

Borodog

11-06-2007, 02:07 AM

RJT,

I think you must be insane.

Phil153

11-06-2007, 02:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to answer your question, here's my justification:

I have faith that I can have a child who will be happy that he/she was born, who will have meaningful experiences and friendships, and who would rather be alive than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, it is all about passing on your own views. That is a big part (but not the only part) of my point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how you get that out of my post. This is a justification for having kids - not something I'm going to pass on. Let's be clear.

You stated: Life sucks and is gay. Therefore you're an ass if you have kids cause it's selfish to make them live.

I said: That's for the kid to decide. I think most kids are glad they were alive, rather than not.

And again, you're peddling a very cynical view of human motivation when you claim people just have kids to pass on their views.

Metric

11-06-2007, 02:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no God, then I postulate it is immoral to procreate.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if you believe in the singularity? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnreVTKtpMs)

Piers

11-06-2007, 02:17 AM

Huh! /images/graemlins/confused.gif

So to be trully moral, we should go around killing as many inocent children as we can so their suffering only last a few years. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

RJT

11-06-2007, 02:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I'm having a bad day. First I couldnt understand luckyme and now you... /images/graemlins/confused.gif
Can you explain what you're talking about, because these dont make sense to me:

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying it is impossible to attain Happiness (although, I think it is impossible – just not willing to lay it on the line).

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not saying it is impossible to attain happiness, although you think it is impossible. Doesnt that mean you are saying it is impossible?

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I have never met one who has attained it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet before you said that those of us who arent depressed are happy. Havent we "attained happiness" if we're happy?

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly wouldn’t buy that one says he has attained Happiness if he spends some of his life on message boards or playing poker – as we all do. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I've attained it, I think. I have a sickeningly idyllic life. And part of why I'm happy is because I post here.

I really dont get it. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Bunny, you are one of the few people whom I have “met” who seem to be on the verge of attaining Happiness. I can think of one author I read who gets close, too.

Like I said we all are basically happy folk. I am talking about living life in a state, for the most part, of Happiness.

bunny

11-06-2007, 02:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok I'm having a bad day. First I couldnt understand luckyme and now you... /images/graemlins/confused.gif
Can you explain what you're talking about, because these dont make sense to me:

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying it is impossible to attain Happiness (although, I think it is impossible – just not willing to lay it on the line).

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not saying it is impossible to attain happiness, although you think it is impossible. Doesnt that mean you are saying it is impossible?

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I have never met one who has attained it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet before you said that those of us who arent depressed are happy. Havent we "attained happiness" if we're happy?

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly wouldn’t buy that one says he has attained Happiness if he spends some of his life on message boards or playing poker – as we all do. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I've attained it, I think. I have a sickeningly idyllic life. And part of why I'm happy is because I post here.

I really dont get it. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Bunny, you are one of the few people whom I have “met” who seem to be on the verge of attaining Happiness. I can think of one author I read who gets close, too.

Like I said we all are basically happy folk. I am talking about living life in a state, for the most part, of Happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does your capitalisation of Happiness change it from a state of being happy? It seems contradictory to say people are happy but arent in a state of happiness (or Happiness).

madnak

11-06-2007, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said we all are basically happy folk.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you actually said is that happiness is impossible.

RJT

11-06-2007, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to answer your question, here's my justification:

I have faith that I can have a child who will be happy that he/she was born, who will have meaningful experiences and friendships, and who would rather be alive than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, it is all about passing on your own views. That is a big part (but not the only part) of my point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how you get that out of my post. This is a justification for having kids - not something I'm going to pass on. Let's be clear.

You stated: Life sucks and is gay. Therefore you're an ass if you have kids cause it's selfish to make them live.

I said: That's for the kid to decide. I think most kids are glad they were alive, rather than not.

And again, you're peddling a very cynical view of human motivation when you claim people just have kids to pass on their views.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying that. I am saying you already decided for them. You passed your view on in the act of having children.

It is absurd to think you can pose the question after the fact (and to them).

RJT

11-06-2007, 02:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said we all are basically happy folk.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you actually said is that happiness is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where?

RJT

11-06-2007, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Huh! /images/graemlins/confused.gif

So to be trully moral, we should go around killing as many inocent children as we can so their suffering only last a few years. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not even close to my point.

chezlaw

11-06-2007, 02:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It is absurd to think you can pose the question after the fact (and to them).

[/ QUOTE ]
How about rescuing an unconscious stranger from a burning building?

Seems by your reasoning it would be selfless to leave them there and immoral to recue them.

chez

RJT

11-06-2007, 02:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is absurd to think you can pose the question after the fact (and to them).

[/ QUOTE ]
How about rescuing an unconscious stranger from a burning building?

Seems by your reasoning it would be selfless to leave them there and immoral to recue them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, comparing a living human being to non-matter. Where did that come from?

chezlaw

11-06-2007, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is absurd to think you can pose the question after the fact (and to them).

[/ QUOTE ]
How about rescuing an unconscious stranger from a burning building?

Seems by your reasoning it would be selfless to leave them there and immoral to recue them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, comparing a living human being to non-matter. Where did that come from?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just following your logic (or trying to /images/graemlins/grin.gif). They wont be truly happy if we rescue them, wont suffer if we don't and we can't ask them.

chez

Subfallen

11-06-2007, 02:56 AM

Happiness (absence of suffering) is a stupid metric to choose for trying to justify/refute life. Just so you know.

Lestat

11-06-2007, 02:57 AM

I am not saying it is impossible to attain Happiness (although, I think it is impossible – ). 

Are you drinking tonight RJT?

Lestat

11-06-2007, 02:58 AM

... Of how belief in god messes with people's mind.

Here we have a reasonable theist who gives the appearance of sound mind, yet seems completely confused about happiness to the point where he questions bringing children into the world (but we shouldn't get him wrong, he wouldn't trade off?!?!). Additionally, he isn't saying it's impossible to attain happiness, he just think it's impossible.

If this isn't confusion, I don't know what is. And I squarely blame god for this poor guy's tortured soul.

RJT

11-06-2007, 03:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
 I am not saying it is impossible to attain Happiness (although, I think it is impossible – ). 

Are you drinking tonight RJT?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant, I am not going to go out on a limb for that tangential point. If we want to start a new thread on the possibility of attaining Happiness, fine. Thinking and stating are two diffent things, last I knew.

RJT

11-06-2007, 03:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
... Of how belief in god messes with people's mind.

Here we have a reasonable theist who gives the appearance of sound mind, yet seems completely confused about happiness to the point where he questions bringing children into the world (but we shouldn't get him wrong, he wouldn't trade off?!?!). Additionally, he isn't saying it's impossible to attain happiness, he just think it's impossible.

If this isn't confusion, I don't know what is. And I squarely blame god for this poor guy's tortured soul.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of my post had nothing to do with happiness or not. I'll take the blame for including those issues. I'll repost my point more simply in my next post.

bunny

11-06-2007, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The point of my post had nothing to do with happiness or not. I'll take the blame for including those issues. I'll repost my point more simply in my next post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it does, I think it hinges on the impossibility of happiness. If the proposed child will experience more joy than suffering then it's a moral act to bring them into the world, no? I would claim most people would rather be alive than dead (and I'm more confident than usual that I'm going to win that one /images/graemlins/grin.gif) doesnt that imply most people experience more joy than suffering?

RJT

11-06-2007, 03:17 AM

Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

Lestat

11-06-2007, 03:17 AM

I would claim most people would rather be alive than dead (and I'm more confident than usual that I'm going to win that one ) 

Great quote. I laughed, because it's so true, however...

doesnt that imply most people experience more joy than suffering? 

Not necessarily. It could be because fear is a more powerful motivator than happiness. In fact, I'm sure it is in many cases. There are probably many people with horrible suffering lives that don't want to die.

And ironically, I suspect it is theists who fear death more so than atheists. An atheist who has thought things through, realizes that there is nothing to be afraid of in death. A theist however.... Well, why shouldn't they be petrified of death? They must realize there is some chance they will be spending an eternity in suffering pain. Who wouldn't be scared by that notion?

chezlaw

11-06-2007, 03:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the valid reason is people want kids. You need to demonstrate that that desire (or following through on it) is immoral.

chez

RJT

11-06-2007, 03:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of my post had nothing to do with happiness or not. I'll take the blame for including those issues. I'll repost my point more simply in my next post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it does, I think it hinges on the impossibility of happiness. If the proposed child will experience more joy than suffering then it's a moral act to bring them into the world, no? I would claim most people would rather be alive than dead (and I'm more confident than usual that I'm going to win that one /images/graemlins/grin.gif) doesnt that imply most people experience more joy than suffering?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should there be consequences to you if it doesn’t turn out this way.

Lestat

11-06-2007, 03:42 AM

I'll actually agree with you at the bottom, but before I do...

 1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.) 

Can you define exactly what you find selfish about it? Are you saying the mere act of wanting something is selfish? So if someone wants world peace, are they being selfish? If someone wants to get married and finds a spouse, are they being selfish? So therefore you find that wanting to start a family is selfish?

The way I look at it, in order for something to be selfish, you need a victim of the selfish act. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're implying the childredn brought into the world are the victims. I'll vehemently dispute this, but before I do, I want to make sure this is what you're saying.

 2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity. 

There was a time when my kids weren't alive. Now they are. So clearly your above statement must be wrong for they have in fact received the gift of life.

 3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived


I agree, but it's the most logical thing to ask in response to what you seem to be suggesting.

 Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense. 

Ok, if you want to get down to the bare basics, you're right. Procreating IS selfish! The primary reason we procreate is to advance our own genes. But this is only in what has become an almost unconscious Darwinian sense. I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't fully cognizant of being in the act of advancing my genes the time I made love to my wife which led to our first child. It was an act of love. A love for my wife so great, that I was willing to make all sacrifices it would take to start a family with her. Selfish? Do you have kids? Do you have any idea how your life changes and the things you give up when you do? I'd hardly call that selfish. If I were selfish I never would've had kids. If fact, those who don't have kids are admittedly too selfish to do so.

Lestat

11-06-2007, 03:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the valid reason is people want kids. You need to demonstrate that that desire (or following through on it) is immoral.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he recanted the immoral part.

RJT

11-06-2007, 03:47 AM

RJT

11-06-2007, 03:52 AM

Stat,

Here, I am not connoting a negative tone to the word selfish, if that is what you are asking? Simply making a statement. There is no one else to consult or consider. As chez says, we do it because we want to, we want it.

RJT

chezlaw

11-06-2007, 03:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the valid reason is people want kids. You need to demonstrate that that desire (or following through on it) is immoral.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he recanted the immoral part.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then there's no difference between having them or not, its as easy (or difficult) to justify having them as not having them and neither is more selfless.

Can we justify dipping toast in our soft boiled eggs or should the eggs be put on the toast.

chez

RJT

11-06-2007, 04:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the valid reason is people want kids. You need to demonstrate that that desire (or following through on it) is immoral.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he recanted the immoral part.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then there's no difference between having them or not, its as easy (or difficult) to justify having them as not having them and neither is more selfless.

Can we justify dipping toast in our soft boiled eggs or should the eggs be put on the toast.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Or course the eggs should be put on the toast and eaten with a fork. Is this a trick question?

Now fried eggs require dipping.

RJT

11-06-2007, 04:06 AM

I am trying to get at the fact that having children is an emotional, animalistic instinct, with its base in self gratification. There is no logical reason to think otherwise. I’ll go out on a limb and say it really is an absurd act.

chezlaw

11-06-2007, 04:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the valid reason is people want kids. You need to demonstrate that that desire (or following through on it) is immoral.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he recanted the immoral part.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then there's no difference between having them or not, its as easy (or difficult) to justify having them as not having them and neither is more selfless.

Can we justify dipping toast in our soft boiled eggs or should the eggs be put on the toast.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Or course the eggs should be put on the toast and eaten with a fork. Is this a trick question?

Now fried eggs require dipping.

[/ QUOTE ]
At Le Gavroche Restaurant (one of the finest in the world) I had boiled eggs with toast soldiers, dipping for the use of.

Kids not allowed /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

chezlaw

11-06-2007, 04:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to get at the fact that having children is an emotional, animalistic instinct, with its base in self gratification. There is no logical reason to think otherwise. I’ll go out on a limb and say it really is an absurd act.

[/ QUOTE ]
So is sex - what a ridiculous thing to do.

chez

tame_deuces

11-06-2007, 04:15 AM

RJT

11-06-2007, 04:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the valid reason is people want kids. You need to demonstrate that that desire (or following through on it) is immoral.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he recanted the immoral part.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then there's no difference between having them or not, its as easy (or difficult) to justify having them as not having them and neither is more selfless.

Can we justify dipping toast in our soft boiled eggs or should the eggs be put on the toast.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Or course the eggs should be put on the toast and eaten with a fork. Is this a trick question?

Now fried eggs require dipping.

[/ QUOTE ]
At Le Gavroche Restaurant (one of the finest in the world) I had boiled eggs with toast soldiers, dipping for the use of.

Kids not allowed /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Dang, I'm wrong again. (But, should we really use the French as our metric? They did get the no kids part right, though.)

Note to Stat: For the record, I love kids and no, don't have any.

RJT

11-06-2007, 04:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to get at the fact that having children is an emotional, animalistic instinct, with its base in self gratification. There is no logical reason to think otherwise. I’ll go out on a limb and say it really is an absurd act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Self gratification isn't logical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. We have a desire to have children. We act on that desire by rationally choosing to satisfy it by having said children. That act is self gratification, you are right. I guess I put the cart before the horse. Insert the word desire where I wrote self gratification.

tame_deuces

11-06-2007, 04:34 AM

And it probably started out that way. But we humans have this wonderful thing called cognition which makes us able to put feelings, moral values and reasoning on actions and concepts so they can become more than that.

We don't need god for morals, because we have ourselves.

DougShrapnel

11-06-2007, 04:38 AM

Ok, let me see if I understand, we are using the moral axiom "suffering is bad". And then assuming that all people will suffer at some point in life. And then saying that having kids is wrong because they will suffer at some point. I'm not sure what proving happiness being possible would have to do with this, so i think that I might have it wrong.

But, typically, it isn't the result that we place the most weight on with regard to ethics. It's intent. If your intent is for your kids to suffer, people would consider you immoral, if your intent is to prevent suffering for your kids, people would consider that moral.

RJT

11-06-2007, 04:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You have an awfully depressing view of life, RJT. I understand that you can't imagine purpose or positivity or meaningful morality without God, but that's your own failing, not anyone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]
1)I have no such depressing view of life. I love life. 2) Are you suggesting there is a purpose to life? 3) We can come up with any meaningful morality we want. That’s much easier to do without God, then given a God.

[ QUOTE ]
If you need God, fine. But I find your whole premise that life isn't worth living without God rather uncreative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say this?

RJT

11-06-2007, 04:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let me see if I understand, we are using the moral axiom "suffering is bad". And then assuming that all people will suffer at some point in life. And then saying that having kids is wrong because they will suffer at some point. I'm not sure what proving happiness being possible would have to do with this, so i think that I might have it wrong.

But, typically, it isn't the result that we place the most weight on with regard to ethics. It's intent. If your intent is for your kids to suffer, people would consider you immoral, if your intent is to prevent suffering for your kids, people would consider that moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point regarding suffering is that it is inevitable, unless of course, such a thing as total happiness is attainable. Once someone is born the whole point becomes moot.

I am saying there is no reason to have children, so we should put a stop to it. The idea of procreating is passé.

madnak

11-06-2007, 04:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If the validity of having children is wanting them, then having children is an emotional act. If we are acting emotionally, then we are not also acting rationally. We are acting rationally based on our emotions, perhaps. But, it is not a rational act itself. Or am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're 100% wrong.

"If we are acting emotionally, then we are not also acting rationally." Did you just pull this out of your ass? Who says we're not acting rationally?

Reason is a standard of evaluation and a process. Reason doesn't provide motivation. This is basic logic, dude. Even emotional processes aren't necessarily irrational - emotional motivations can never be irrational.

RJT

11-06-2007, 04:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]

And it probably started out that way. But we humans have this wonderful thing called cognition which makes us able to put feelings, moral values and reasoning on actions and concepts so they can become more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do they become?

DougShrapnel

11-06-2007, 04:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let me see if I understand, we are using the moral axiom "suffering is bad". And then assuming that all people will suffer at some point in life. And then saying that having kids is wrong because they will suffer at some point. I'm not sure what proving happiness being possible would have to do with this, so i think that I might have it wrong.

But, typically, it isn't the result that we place the most weight on with regard to ethics. It's intent. If your intent is for your kids to suffer, people would consider you immoral, if your intent is to prevent suffering for your kids, people would consider that moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point regarding suffering is that it is inevitable, unless of course, such a thing as total happiness is attainable. Once someone is born the whole point becomes moot.

I am saying there is no reason to have children, so we should put a stop to it. The idea of procreating is passé.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, so this has nothing to do with children and is "Without God life has no meaning" dressed up.

RJT

11-06-2007, 05:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the validity of having children is wanting them, then having children is an emotional act. If we are acting emotionally, then we are not also acting rationally. We are acting rationally based on our emotions, perhaps. But, it is not a rational act itself. Or am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're 100% wrong.

"If we are acting emotionally, then we are not also acting rationally." Did you just pull this out of your ass? Who says we're not acting rationally?

Reason is a standard of evaluation and a process. Reason doesn't provide motivation. This is basic logic, dude. Even emotional processes aren't necessarily irrational - emotional motivations can never be irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we have children because we want them, then we are acting on our desires. To reach this end, we commence to act rationally. But the rational process - to have children - starts out of desire, an emotion. (This is all given chezlaw’s premise that we have children, because we want to.)

Emotion itself not rational or irrational.

madnak

11-06-2007, 05:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying there is no reason to have children, so we should put a stop to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, many reasons have been offered up in this very thread for having children. Personal fulfillment for one.

Even if there were no reason to have children, that wouldn't represent rational grounds for putting a stop to it. You seem to have no understanding of logic. What you're trying to describe when you say that everyone must logically take a certain action is called a categorical imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative). A categorical imperative is based on a set of premises that make that imperative meaningful and necessary. It's a difficult thing to define and, given that the premises will probably be widely rejected, it's not useful (with all due respect to Kant and his illusion that everyone would accept his premises).

But you're asking us to accept this imperative based on nothing at all. You're basically saying, "if it serves no obvious purpose, then it must be destroyed!" It would be hard to make this a rational position.

RJT

11-06-2007, 05:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let me see if I understand, we are using the moral axiom "suffering is bad". And then assuming that all people will suffer at some point in life. And then saying that having kids is wrong because they will suffer at some point. I'm not sure what proving happiness being possible would have to do with this, so i think that I might have it wrong.

But, typically, it isn't the result that we place the most weight on with regard to ethics. It's intent. If your intent is for your kids to suffer, people would consider you immoral, if your intent is to prevent suffering for your kids, people would consider that moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point regarding suffering is that it is inevitable, unless of course, such a thing as total happiness is attainable. Once someone is born the whole point becomes moot.

I am saying there is no reason to have children, so we should put a stop to it. The idea of procreating is passé.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, so this has nothing to do with children and is "Without God life has no meaning" dressed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget about God. Life either has meaning or not.

RJT

11-06-2007, 05:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am saying there is no reason to have children, so we should put a stop to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, many reasons have been offered up in this very thread for having children. Personal fulfillment for one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I will re-read the thread. I thought that was the only reason offered.

tame_deuces

11-06-2007, 05:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And it probably started out that way. But we humans have this wonderful thing called cognition which makes us able to put feelings, moral values and reasoning on actions and concepts so they can become more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do they become?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no set standard for that, if it was you would probably have been proven right.

It is often the fallacy of 'strong materialists' that they look at the smallest physical building blocks and the net result, but not on the workings of what is in between.

madnak

11-06-2007, 05:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If we have children because we want them, then we are acting on our desires. To reach this end, we commence to act rationally. But the rational process - to have children - starts out of desire, an emotion. (This is all given chezlaw&#8217;s premise that we have children, because we want to.)

Emotion itself not rational or irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

All true. None of this supports any of the assertions you've made. As you say, emotion is neither rational nor irrational. It's a perfectly valid basis for action. Many of us believe, given an appropriately broad definition of "emotion," that it is the basis for all human action. What's your point?

madnak

11-06-2007, 05:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Forget about God. Life either has meaning or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to a relevant definition of the term "meaning" and a relevant standard for evaluating life according to that definition. But if you're going to divorce yourself from the accepted meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)) associated with a term, it's your responsibility to define your special use of that term.

You're only spouting nonsense if you go around using your own personal definitions of terms like "happiness" and "meaning" without telling anybody what those definitions are.

In the ordinary sense of the term "meaning," life can have plenty of meaning based purely on emotional contexts. Life may have no meaning according to your definition of the term, but that's irrelevant.

madnak

11-06-2007, 05:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I will re-read the thread. I thought that was the only reason offered.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thread also mentions providing children with the joy of living and gifting humanity with kick-ass kids and providing financial security for the aging parent. And we could add things like propagation of the species and the desire to leave a legacy and the more pathological stuff like social expectations and financial incentives.

RJT

11-06-2007, 05:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we have children because we want them, then we are acting on our desires. To reach this end, we commence to act rationally. But the rational process - to have children - starts out of desire, an emotion. (This is all given chezlaw&#8217;s premise that we have children, because we want to.)

Emotion itself not rational or irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

All true. None of this supports any of the assertions you've made. As you say, emotion is neither rational nor irrational. It's a perfectly valid basis for action. Many of us believe, given an appropriately broad definition of "emotion," that it is the basis for all human action. What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we agree there is no purpose to life? Human life evolved from an evolutionary process that started however it started. We are what we are.

Having children is an act of self gratification that begins with a desire. We agree there is no reason to have children in and of its self.

There is no purpose to life, so why do we keep perpetuating said non-purpose. The whole idea of perpetuating the species is simply an absurd concept. Why? Seriously, it is passé. Perhaps we should work on a drug that inhibits this desire to propagate.

Why is the logical assumption biased towards the opposite of what I am suggesting?

I know this sounds ridiculous. But, is there a logical reason why it is not a good idea?

RJT

11-06-2007, 05:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I will re-read the thread. I thought that was the only reason offered.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thread also mentions providing children with the joy of living and gifting humanity with kick-ass kids and providing financial security for the aging parent. And we could add things like propagation of the species and the desire to leave a legacy and the more pathological stuff like social expectations and financial incentives.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)The thread also mentions providing children with the joy of living

Don’t have them and they won’t know the difference.

2)and providing financial security for the aging parent.

It wouldn’t be cheaper to save your money and hire a caretaker at life’s end? Or provide a new social network for us by not burdening the rest of society with schools and children’s hospitals or prisons for our offspring?

3) And we could add things like propagation of the species

Not really much of a reason.

4)and the desire to leave a legacy

That’s ego and self gratification again.

RJT

11-06-2007, 05:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forget about God. Life either has meaning or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to a relevant definition of the term "meaning" and a relevant standard for evaluating life according to that definition. But if you're going to divorce yourself from the accepted meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)) associated with a term, it's your responsibility to define your special use of that term.

You're only spouting nonsense if you go around using your own personal definitions of terms like "happiness" and "meaning" without telling anybody what those definitions are.

In the ordinary sense of the term "meaning," life can have plenty of meaning based purely on emotional contexts. Life may have no meaning according to your definition of the term, but that's irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say anthing about a meaning to life. Doug brought up that point as he put words in my mouth.

DougShrapnel

11-06-2007, 05:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forget about God. Life either has meaning or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to a relevant definition of the term "meaning" and a relevant standard for evaluating life according to that definition. But if you're going to divorce yourself from the accepted meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)) associated with a term, it's your responsibility to define your special use of that term.

You're only spouting nonsense if you go around using your own personal definitions of terms like "happiness" and "meaning" without telling anybody what those definitions are.

In the ordinary sense of the term "meaning," life can have plenty of meaning based purely on emotional contexts. Life may have no meaning according to your definition of the term, but that's irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say anthing about a meaning to life. Doug brought up that point as he put words in my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It's just that this thread disappointingly smells of the "If god doesn't exist, everyone should just kill themselves/ Rape, murder, yada" I'm just gonaa hang back and see if that's what it turns into.

RJT

11-06-2007, 05:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forget about God. Life either has meaning or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to a relevant definition of the term "meaning" and a relevant standard for evaluating life according to that definition. But if you're going to divorce yourself from the accepted meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)) associated with a term, it's your responsibility to define your special use of that term.

You're only spouting nonsense if you go around using your own personal definitions of terms like "happiness" and "meaning" without telling anybody what those definitions are.

In the ordinary sense of the term "meaning," life can have plenty of meaning based purely on emotional contexts. Life may have no meaning according to your definition of the term, but that's irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say anthing about a meaning to life. Doug brought up that point as he put words in my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It's just that this thread disappointingly smells of the "If god doesn't exist, everyone should just kill themselves/ Rape, murder, yada" I'm just gonaa hang back and see if that's what it turns into.

[/ QUOTE ]

After 88 posts, I hope it doesn’t degenerate into that. I am seriously trying to propose a concept that I have never seen discuss and determine if there is any logical reason against the idea.

DougShrapnel

11-06-2007, 06:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Procreation is a selfish act.

[/ QUOTE ] Acts of self interest are good. Simply put that is the reality of the situation IMHO.

madnak

11-06-2007, 06:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do we agree there is no purpose to life?

[/ QUOTE ]

We do not. I don't even reject the possibility of an absolute purpose, but there is no reason a purpose has to be absolute.

[ QUOTE ]
Human life evolved from an evolutionary process that started however it started. We are what we are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone disagrees that we are what we are.

[ QUOTE ]
Having children is an act of self gratification that begins with a desire. We agree there is no reason to have children in and of its self.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean "in and of itself?" That seems like a nonsensical approach to the question of motivation.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no purpose to life, so why do we keep perpetuating said non-purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many reasons, including the self-gratification you mentioned. Also compassion, which you seem to be ignoring.

[ QUOTE ]
The whole idea of perpetuating the species is simply an absurd concept. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure different people have different reasons. For me, I think happiness and joy and pleasure and fulfillment have value. The best way to maximize these things and thus value is to maintain the human species.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should work on a drug that inhibits this desire to propagate.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have given no reason for this. Just because you don't see a purpose in something doesn't mean that you must destroy that thing. Only if the value of destroying it is greater than the value of letting it be can you reach that conclusion. You have given no reason to believe that the extinction of the human race has any value. If all things are valueless (which I certainly don't believe but you seem to be claiming here), then everything is arbitrary. You can't recommend a course of action because all courses of action have the same value. Any argument you use to suggest that propagation has no value can be used to show that the absence of propagation also has no value. Therefore there can be no imperative to stop propagating.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the logical assumption biased towards the opposite of what I am suggesting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Assumptions aren't logical. Logic creates meanings from assumptions. It doesn't create (fundamental) assumptions. Those have to come from somewhere other than logic - whether it's math and axioms or motivation and emotions.

[ QUOTE ]
I know this sounds ridiculous. But, is there a logical reason why it is not a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no logical reason why it is a good idea. By suggesting it's a "good" idea, you're proposing that it's somehow superior to other ideas - and the onus is on you to support that.

Personally I think it's a bad idea because I value happiness and it removes happiness from the world.

MidGe

11-06-2007, 06:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
After 88 posts, I hope it doesn’t degenerate into that. I am seriously trying to propose a concept that I have never seen discuss and determine if there is any logical reason against the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am giving you some support here, RJT!

The facts (not ideas, vague hopes or whatver) is that I have had no children as a conscious decision based on what I saw/see life to be. My partners have shared this idea. At least, one very good friend, let our friendship lapse because I refused to be a donor for her pregnancy. The only answer I could give her for my lack of willingness to fulfill her wishes was that it would go contrary to all I experienced and understood, to participate in any way in bringing on another sentience to be.

Having said that I also added that I did not judge her decision, simply that I did not want to participate. I lost her, and her family friendship. By the way, she was assuring me that there would be no obligations at all on my part to be in any way involved with the life of her child.

Since then, she has had a child, is very happy, and I am still certain I did the right thing too.

madnak

11-06-2007, 06:41 AM

Because there are clear communication problems here, I'm going to use poker terms. Presumably we, being on this site, have some understanding of the concepts laid down in ToP.

I'm in a hand of poker and I can raise, call, or fold. Raising is -EV. Calling is 0 EV, and folding (as always) is 0 EV. I choose to call. Then, you come in.

RJT: "Don't call, fold."
madnak: "No, I think I'll call."
RJT: "But calling has 0 EV. How do you justify calling?"
madnak: "Folding also has 0 EV, and I want to see the river. I'll call."
RJT: "But wanting to see the river is emotional! You have no logical reason to call."
madnak: "I have no reason to fold, either. So I'm going to call."
RJT: "Why is calling better than folding? You should fold. Calling is pointless, it has 0 EV."
madnak: "Folding is also pointless, and I want to call. There's no reason I should fold if I want to call."
RJT: "You should fold, calling is passé."

But I'm going to call. Unless you can explain why folding (not having children) is better than calling (having children), I have no reason to follow your advice. I'm perfectly justified in going with my preference and calling.

Actually, I'm going to fold. But who knows, I'm still young.

madnak

11-06-2007, 06:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1)The thread also mentions providing children with the joy of living

Don&#8217;t have them and they won&#8217;t know the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what matters. To continue with the analogy, having them is +EV. Not having them is 0 EV. Whether they know the difference is irrelevant. If I can choose to either bring joy into the world or avoid bringing joy into the world, I'll choose to bring joy into the world.

[ QUOTE ]
It wouldn&#8217;t be cheaper to save your money and hire a caretaker at life&#8217;s end? Or provide a new social network for us by not burdening the rest of society with schools and children&#8217;s hospitals or prisons for our offspring?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. It depends on the situation. Regardless, I don't think those options are really viable, and having relationships and companionship during senescence is important.

[ QUOTE ]
3) And we could add things like propagation of the species

Not really much of a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Says you. I think humans are pretty cool.

[ QUOTE ]
4)and the desire to leave a legacy

That&#8217;s ego and self gratification again.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

vhawk01

11-06-2007, 12:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already proved to you that 1) is false. Didnt you read my post about how awesome I am?

chezlaw

11-06-2007, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the valid reason is people want kids. You need to demonstrate that that desire (or following through on it) is immoral.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he recanted the immoral part.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then there's no difference between having them or not, its as easy (or difficult) to justify having them as not having them and neither is more selfless.

Can we justify dipping toast in our soft boiled eggs or should the eggs be put on the toast.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Or course the eggs should be put on the toast and eaten with a fork. Is this a trick question?

Now fried eggs require dipping.

[/ QUOTE ]
At Le Gavroche Restaurant (one of the finest in the world) I had boiled eggs with toast soldiers, dipping for the use of.

Kids not allowed /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Dang, I'm wrong again. (But, should we really use the French as our metric? They did get the no kids part right, though.)

[/ QUOTE ]
ooh yes when it comes to food. French, Italian, Chinese, Anglo-Indian and Thai is just about everything.

but if the Great Chef (Albert Roux) hadn't had a kid to take over then I wouldn't have had the eggs and soldiers and ... damn must be something profound here.

chez

hitch1978

11-06-2007, 03:07 PM

haven't read the whole thread, but here's my 2c. Sorry if it's allready been covered.

1) Sex is fun.
2) Spending time with your kids is fun, for us and them.
3) Life is what you make of it, I am confident that I will raise children that will make it enjoyable.
4) You haven't really said anything in you OP except 'Life sucks so why force it on someone else, oh yea, except mine, I don't wanna lose mine.'

bocablkr

11-06-2007, 04:37 PM

RJT,

What were you smoking when you posted this question?

Taraz

11-06-2007, 05:34 PM

RJT, if there is a God, why is procreation valuable? I just want a comparison point for your argument.

vhawk01

11-06-2007, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
RJT, if there is a God, why is procreation valuable? I just want a comparison point for your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

More souls for the grinder.

CORed

11-06-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It will make sense if you start taking antidepressants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or get laid. Which could lead to procreation, even if that's not your primary reason for doing it.

madnak

11-06-2007, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ooh yes when it comes to food. French, Italian, Chinese, Anglo-Indian and Thai is just about everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a vegetarian - one of these things is not like the others...

einbert

11-07-2007, 02:00 AM

Procreation means giving "someone" a chance to experience humanity. To experience colors, music, sunsets, cheeseburgers, sex, language, love, fear, anger, regret. What chances that life has are your responsibility for awhile, but eventually will be his alone. If you are mature and stable enough to give that life a decent chance at happiness, procreation needs no further justification whatsoever.

Life is an incredible gift to be able to give, and human life that much more so.

edit: Plus, sex is fun!

MaxWeiss

11-07-2007, 07:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But, why would one subjugate innocent children to a life of suffering that goes along with the joys in life?

[/ QUOTE ]

You just answered your own question.

There is BOTH happiness and suffering. If you think that you can make a child more happy than not, and happy to have been born on average, then it is moral by your standards to have a kid is it not??

Also, if you look for the statistics, smarter people are generally more likely to have kids later in life or not have them at all. That is, they try to get themselves in a position to make their kids happy BEFORE they actually have them.

That being said, I can't believe I justified your stupid post with a response.

MidGe

11-07-2007, 08:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you look for the statistics, smarter people are generally more likely to have kids later in life or not have them at all. That is, they try to get themselves in a position to make their kids happy BEFORE they actually have them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I wonder were you got your statistics?

That being said, I can't believe I justified your stupid post with a response.

chezlaw

11-07-2007, 11:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ooh yes when it comes to food. French, Italian, Chinese, Anglo-Indian and Thai is just about everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a vegetarian - one of these things is not like the others...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a bonus point to the French. Have you ever been to Northern Spain?

madnak

11-07-2007, 03:18 PM

Nope, never been to Europe.

vhawk01

11-07-2007, 03:25 PM

MaxWeiss

11-08-2007, 09:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you look for the statistics, smarter people are generally more likely to have kids later in life or not have them at all. That is, they try to get themselves in a position to make their kids happy BEFORE they actually have them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I wonder were you got your statistics?

That being said, I can't believe I justified your stupid post with a response.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

That's one that is focused on mainly the relationship between sex and intelligence not having kids. It's been a few years since I remember reading it, but I will post the other articles if/when I find them.

Edit: Also what about my post is stupid other than my failure to cite sources?? I felt the OP was stupid because he claimed having kids was wrong based on his view of what personal happiness is, but I don't see how my post is similarly stupid. I would like to prevent stupid posts (from me) in the future, so please do tell me where you found fault.