Are large differences in opinion desirable?

[radamfi]

Are they? Do you have any empirical evidence that people who believe having children is great are any more inclined to complain about the bad events such as the ones in your examples than are people who do not wish to have children?

Both groups complain. You would expect it from those who don't want children for ethical reasons, as they feel they are innocent pawns in all of this, but possibly not from the pro-child camp, as they are the ones who say how great life is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is this correct? I don't know a huge amount of philosophy, but from what little reading I have done, I haven't got any impression that there is any significant debate within mainstream philosophy on the question of whether the bad outweighs the good in life. In fact, I don't recall the subject even coming up in what I've read. Given that there is no objective way to measure either levels of badness or levels of goodness, it's difficult to see that any such discussion would be particularly fruitful.

There is at least one academic who has a book on this matter

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Have-Children-Ethical-Bioethics/dp/0262016982

But when I say "philosophers", I include amateurs as well, which therefore includes many of us on this thread.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Both groups complain. You would expect it from those who don't want children for ethical reasons, as they feel they are innocent pawns in all of this, but possibly not from the pro-child camp, as they are the ones who say how great life is.

You seem to be implying that there is some inherent contradiction between believing that life is on balance great, and at the same time acknowledging that there are bad parts of it. But I don't see that. I can think of lots of things that appear to be on balance to be very good despite having some less good aspects. (Trivial rail-related example: My local station has a vastly insufficient number of seats, which I regard as quite bad, and if given an appropriate opportunity, I'd certainly complain loudly about the lack of seats. But I'd still much rather have the station there than no station!)

 

[radamfi]

You seem to be implying that there is some inherent contradiction between believing that life is on balance great, and at the same time acknowledging that there are bad parts of it. But I don't see that. I can think of lots of things that appear to be on balance to be very good despite having some less good aspects. (Trivial rail-related example: My local station has a vastly insufficient number of seats, which I regard as quite bad. But I'd still much rather have the station there than no station!)

Your example can be remedied relatively easily if society/government etc. wanted it so. Getting rid of disease/break-ups would on the other hand be a monumental task for humanity. So anyone having a child should not be surprised if that child experiences disease or a break-up.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Your example can be remedied relatively easily if society/government etc. wanted it so. Getting rid of disease/break-ups would on the other hand be a monumental task for humanity. So anyone having a child should not be surprised if that child experiences disease or a break-up.

But that wasn't the point of my example. The point was to illustrate that there is no contradiction between believing that X is good, and believing that certain aspects of X are bad. In my example, X is 'my local station' but the logic appears to work just as well if X is 'life'.

That appears to contradict the implicit assumption in your earlier posts that believing that parts of life are bad is incompatible with believing that life is good.

 

[radamfi]

But that wasn't the point of my example. The point was to illustrate that there is no contradiction between believing that X is good, and believing that certain aspects of X are bad. In my example, X is 'my local station' but the logic appears to work just as well if X is 'life'.

That appears to contradict the implicit assumption in your earlier posts that believing that parts of life are bad is incompatible with believing that life is good.

Some (probably most) people who believe that life is overall good do also acknowledge that there are bad parts. But some people who believe that life is overall good are genuinely surprised and angry when bad events actually happen.

 

[DaleCooper]

Some (probably most) people who believe that life is overall good do also acknowledge that there are bad parts. But some people who believe that life is overall good are genuinely surprised and angry when bad events actually happen.

Another pearl of wisdom from radamfi, it's a pity us swine don't appreciate them.

 

[radamfi]

This seems to be an entirely utilitarian viewpoint, where radamfi thinks that the highest possible utility is 0, where none of us exist.

To be honest, I think it's nuts.

There are actually more books on this subject than I thought. In the comments for this book

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-...d_cp_14_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1JVAJ2XA0MFEJPWFQJ43

someone actually addresses this direct point:

In this remarkable book, the South African philosopher David Benatar attempts to solve, in a most unusual way, some related moral problems concerning matters of life and death. Benatar claims, inter alia, that deliberate procreation is immoral; that abortion is morally mandatory if possible before approximately 30 weeks of gestation; and that the morally optimal size of the human population is ZERO. On the face of it, this may strike the reader as absurd, or even insane, but Benatar is most certainly not a madman, as any reader who gives this book a fair chance will soon acknowledge.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Your example can be remedied relatively easily if society/government etc. wanted it so. Getting rid of disease/break-ups would on the other hand be a monumental task for humanity. So anyone having a child should not be surprised if that child experiences disease or a break-up.

Why do you want to discount emotion from your analysis? The knowledge that I am unlikely to win something does not dispel the disappointment I feel if I do. I don't see where you make the jump from emotion being inexplicable purely in terms of facts about the world to the normative claim that we should not feel emotion at all.

In fact, the question of where our emotions come from (and the evaluative judgments we make from them) is a massive question in philosophy which is still going on to this day. It reaches from the ethics I've linked to previously to the philosophy of science (in multiple ways) to Marxism to Plato and even into economics and sociology. I don't really think you can just dismiss people as wrong for feeling the way they do because you've assumed this omniscient perspective where they can just feel the same about everyone everywhere. A really good intro to this is Hume on justice, who gives an intuitive explanation of why we don't feel the same way about everyone in every time and place (even if perhaps we should).

 

[DaleCooper]

Philosophers are very good at making compelling arguments to support absurd propositions, it's what they're trained to do. That doesn't mean they intend their arguments to be taken as anything more than an academic exercise in abstract metaphysics.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Philosophers are very good at making compelling arguments to support absurd propositions, it's what they're trained to do. That doesn't mean they intend their arguments to be taken as anything more than an academic exercise in abstract metaphysics.

Depends on the philosophy. The philosophy of science is vital in ensuring that we conduct science in a way that is actually meaningful. On the other hand, Cartesian doubt is completely bl**dy useless.

 

[radamfi]

Why do you want to discount emotion from your analysis? The knowledge that I am unlikely to win something does not dispel the disappointment I feel if I do. I don't see where you make the jump from emotion being inexplicable purely in terms of facts about the world to the normative claim that we should not feel emotion at all.

Someone putting forward the argument that it is a good thing to have children would face criticism from someone like me saying, "What about death/disease/pain and so on?" They would then reply, "Yes, those are bad things but they are worth tolerating because of the good things in life." But those very same people later complain about those things. Of course people are human and will therefore succumb to emotion, but I feel it does harm their argument.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Someone putting forward the argument that it is a good thing to have children would face criticism from someone like me saying, "What about death/disease/pain and so on?" They would then reply, "Yes, those are bad things but they are worth tolerating because of the good things in life." But those very same people later complain about those things. Of course people are human and will therefore succumb to emotion, but I feel it does harm their argument.

Not everyone is a utilitarian.

 

[DaleCooper]

Depends on the philosophy. The philosophy of science is vital in ensuring that we conduct science in a way that is actually meaningful. On the other hand, Cartesian doubt is completely bl**dy useless.

Quite true. I didn't mean all philosophy, what I was trying to say in my clumsy fashion is that philosophers are capable of, to paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, "holding two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

 

[DarloRich]

One thing I do find a bit hypocritical from people who are very pro-child is that people are very surprised and get very angry when bad things happen.

Someone gets murdered. "Oh, this is unbelievable! How has society got to this?"

Someone dies of a disease. "The way this disease kills is so painful and horrible. We need to find a cure for it and fast."

Someone suffers from a relationship break-up. "I can't believe this is happening to me!"

These things are part and parcel of life and so if you accept the bringing of children into the world you should also accept and tolerate the downsides.

You have absolutely no emotional intelligence or empathy do you?

 

[radamfi]

You have absolutely no emotional intelligence or empathy do you?

If that isn't abusive I don't know what is.

 

[DaleCooper]

If that isn't abusive I don't know what is.

It isn't abusive it's just a judgment based on your posts and, on that basis, one I agree with.

 

[Darandio]

If that isn't abusive I don't know what is.

Give it a rest will you.

 

[DarloRich]

If that isn't abusive I don't know what is.

No it is a question - you suggest that people who,shockingly, don't agree with your point of view are in some way naïve in being shocked by illness, disease or relationship breakdown

I am possibly the least naïve and most cynical person posting on this board but I am able to emphasise and relate with people who suffer unpleasantness - your postings suggest you can not and that you don't understand how people could and that your solution to those everyday unpleasant events is to delete humanity from existence

 

[radamfi]

No it is a question - you suggest that people who,shockingly, don't agree with your point of view are in some way naïve in being shocked by illness, disease or relationship breakdown

I am possibly the least naïve and most cynical person posting on this board but I am able to emphasise and relate with people who suffer unpleasantness - your postings suggest you can not and that you don't understand how people could

How come the more pleasant members of this forum didn't give me such abuse earlier and we had to wait for it to come from you?

If you read the following posts you would be able to see where I was coming from.

 

[Darandio]

How come the more pleasant members of this forum didn't give me such abuse earlier and we had to wait for it to come from you?

If you read the following posts you would be able to see where I was coming from.

It was not abuse. Use of the abuse card is often seen when someone cannot bear to entertain an opposing opinion, or cannot believe that people disagree with them.

 

[radamfi]

It was not abuse. Use of the abuse card is often seen when someone cannot bear to entertain an opposing opinion, or cannot believe that people disagree with them.

He was talking about me *personally*. I was debating quite happily with those opposing me earlier today.

 

[DaleCooper]

How come the more pleasant members of this forum didn't give me such abuse earlier and we had to wait for it to come from you?

Perhaps it had been too subtle or you were too obtuse to recognise it.

 

[DarloRich]

He was talking about me *personally*. I was debating quite happily with those opposing me earlier today.

No with respect I asked a question. A question you haven't answered yet.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No it is a question - you suggest that people who,shockingly, don't agree with your point of view are in some way naïve in being shocked by illness, disease or relationship breakdown

Your post happened to have a question mark at the end, but it was clearly phrased in the form of an accusation:

You have absolutely no emotional intelligence or empathy do you?

I don't see any way to interpret that other than as an accusation that Radamfi has no emotional intelligence. That appears to be an attack on Radamfi's character, so I don't think Radamfi is being unreasonable in interpreting it as personal abuse. The 'do you?' a the end of the accusation doesn't make any substantial difference to the meaning.

And as far as I can see, Radamfi was not saying that people were being naïve in being shocked by illness etc. Rather, he was claiming that they are being hypocritical if they get surprised or angry when, in Radamfi's view, they are [by having children] helping to helping to create the very things they are angry about:

One thing I do find a bit hypocritical from people who are very pro-child is that people are very surprised and get very angry when bad things happen.

I think Radamfi is wrong for lots of reasons. But (a) what he said is not what you are accusing him of having said, and (b) I don't see anything in what he said that is incompatible with his having emotional intelligence or empathy. If you think that there is something in his arguments that lacks compassion or lacks empathy (which I suspect is what is behind your post), it would probably be more constructive to say what that is and why, rather than making accusations about another forum member's character.

 

[DarloRich]

I will agree my question should have been worded better but it was intended as a question

 

[backontrack]

someone actually addresses this direct point:

In this remarkable book, the South African philosopher David Benatar attempts to solve, in a most unusual way, some related moral problems concerning matters of life and death. Benatar claims, inter alia, that deliberate procreation is immoral; that abortion is morally mandatory if possible before approximately 30 weeks of gestation; and that the morally optimal size of the human population is ZERO. On the face of it, this may strike the reader as absurd, or even insane, but Benatar is most certainly not a madman, as any reader who gives this book a fair chance will soon acknowledge.

I notice that Benatar only considers 'deliberate procreation' to be immoral; what about accidental procreation? What then? I'm guessing that that must be a harrowing experience; accidentally having sex with another person doesn't sound exactly favourable as an experience. But what then? Is there an 'accidental' abortion? Surely there has to be some insurance policy that covers the very big and ominous risk that we all face; the risk of accidental procreation.

 

[Harbornite]

If that isn't abusive I don't know what is.

That wasn't abusive so it seems like you don't know what is and what isn't.

 

[ComUtoR]

o paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, "holding two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

If I may, can I paraphrase B. B. Rodríguez, "kill all humans"