What should people be "entitled" to?

[Mise]

I agree that there are a lot of people who are unhappy at having been born and would rather they weren't. I have no way of knowing ahead of time which ones they will be. As you say, even after they are born, I still have no idea. So when your prescription is "if you think it's likely your kids will end up not being happy they were born, maybe don't have kids", then I can't actually use this. I have no way of knowing if they will end up not being happy they were born. Given the way that it is phrased, I can only answer the question honestly by saying "no", in the same way that I cannot positively prove the non-existence of God. I have no evidence whatsoever that my children will end up not being happy they were born, therefore I have to answer "no". Of course, I have no evidence that they will end up being happy they were born either, but that wasn't the question.

Re 1st vs 3rd world happiness, I think most people would expect that living in a developed nation will bring greater happiness than living in a less developed nation (or at least will reduce the chance of suffering). There is certainly "good reason to believe that the children will end up perceiving that their lives were above average as a result" of them living in the 1st rather than the 3rd world. If you took a vote, I would wager that the vast majority of people would say that 1st world children have lives that are above average. Is this not good reason to believe that the children will end up perceiving that their lives were above average as a result of moving from a 3rd to a 1st world nation? It's a neat trick: cultural norms tell us that living in the 1st world will make them happy -> the average child grows up to believe that living in the 1st world will make them happy -> there is good reason to believe that parents should move to the 1st world if possible. Can we do this with money? Education? iPads? White picket fences?

You've presented two criteria here, a "strong" and a "weak" one: "happy they were born" and "above average". But the stronger one is useless and the weaker one compels parents to essentially trick their children. I don't have a counterproposal.

 

[El_Machinae]

The right to have a child is important in itself, because family life is such an important part of human society, so nobody should be forced to give up their children unless they prove that they can't look after them. Innocent until proven guilty, as it were. That and the mere pragmatics of not forcing half of the population to be childless!

Let me rearticulate. Should everyone have the right to adopt? I understand there's a scarcity of babies available, but outside of that. Is it right that adoption agencies try to judge the quality of the adoptive parents? What gives them the right to push someone higher or lower on the waiting list?

 

[Borachio]

Is it right that adoption agencies try to judge the quality of the adoptive parents? What gives them the right to push someone higher or lower on the waiting list?

Well, I suppose it's what gives any institution the right to do anything: experience in the matter - what works and what doesn't.

When adoption goes wrong it goes spectacularly wrong, doesn't it?

What's the alternative? That anyone at all should be able to adopt?

 

[Flying Pig]

Adoption is a case of transferring from one state to the other, so you should have the right to adopt on the condition that you can offer the child a better standard of living than being in care, which should take into account the advantages of having a set of parents. I don't think the two are comparable, but it's an interesting point.

 

[El_Machinae]

That anyone at all should be able to adopt?

It's a counter-point to the idea that everyone should have the right to have children. Intuitively, we just don't place adoptees with just anyone, because we're considering the fate of the children based on the appropriateness of the parents.

 

[illram]

Well this took a strange turn.

I think the response to "why not limit childbirth" is: make the government provide an adequate social safety net that can at least attempt to level the playing field somewhat.

A family with limited means can still provide their child/children with love and support sufficient to give them the opportunity at a fulfilling life, even if they cannot provide sufficient material wealth. Which is why a baseline social safety net is important (to provide basic education, nutritional assistance if necessary, safety, etc.) Lots of amazing people who have made hugely beneficial contributions to this world have come from families that I surmise El Mac might dictate should not have had children, if he only looked at their balance sheet before the parents decided to have kids.

Of course what El Mac is saying is just coarser (harsher?) family planning; family planning is a good thing. But then we are talking also about overpopulation, sustainability, etc. And that mostly just involves providing people with education about healthy sexual lifestyles. (Condom use, birth spacing, etc.) Not actually regulating childbirth. Anything coming close to dictating when parents can have kids is to me just way too morally and ethically harsh for a free society. And I would certainly think everyone is ideally entitled to a "liberal" (not in the American political sense) free society.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, make no mistake, I think the government should tread very, very carefully. This is one of those ethical issues where you'd hardly trust a bureaucracy. A very gentle subsidy of family planning, genetic counseling, and associated research. I can justify all those, but not too much more. Certainly no applications of force, though I waffle on how much 'bribery' is appropriate.

Lots of amazing people who have made hugely beneficial contributions to this world have come from families that I surmise El Mac might dictate should not have had children

This is, I think, missing the point. Firstly, let's not discuss the balance sheet, because that can spin very quickly into dumb hypotheticals. It's not entirely a wealth issue, it's only passingly so with a vague understanding that wealth is involved.. BUT, the real issue is that we're 'happy' to have gotten those contributions. I'm looking at the cost. How many horrible lives are these 'contributions' worth? Should we create a thousand Van Goghs to get one Einstein? A hundred? Ten thousand? A hundred Einsteins per van Gogh? Where's the line you're willing to have other people pay so others can enjoy these 'great contributions'?

The point is that these people are just missing from the calculus. I know a couple kids with Downs Syndrome who are seemingly very happy and who are very loved. Should I just create Down Syndrome children willy nilly? "Look! Some are happy!" I could say. No, I'd be wrong to do so. Now, if nearly 100% of DS children were really happy, then it might be a different question.

Should a family (who can afford it) be allowed to delibertately make kids with AS? Why not? People argue we have the right to make children, especially the right to make happy children! I think your intuition is that we don't have this right to deliberately make these children, to sort through my sperm and modify it so I can get a super-happy IVF baby.

What's an 'above average life'? I'm not really sure. I can recognise a crummy life when I see one. And the owner of a life has a much finer understanding regarding the quality of their own lives. No one asked for their own lives, but they're forced to live with the life that someone gave them. "But van Gogh painted great!", yes, but he lived a tormented life. How many tormented lives should we make to have great paintings?

 

[MobBoss]

"Life's not fair" is really just another way of saying, "I don't care about the problems of others and want to remove my responsibility to help them."

No, it's simply a realistic acknowledgement that no one is guaranteed tomorrow.

Of course I think people should care and give their time to help others. But that doesn't imply that people are owed (entitled) said help.

What you receive from generosity and kindness are not entitlements.

 

[AdamCrock]

To be honest - happiness ! , says it all ! I guess that is why Americans got "in pursuits of happiness" in Their constitution. ^^ Good guys !

 

[Mise]

Oh, make no mistake, I think the government should tread very, very carefully. This is one of those ethical issues where you'd hardly trust a bureaucracy. A very gentle subsidy of family planning, genetic counseling, and associated research. I can justify all those, but not too much more. Certainly no applications of force, though I waffle on how much 'bribery' is appropriate.



This is, I think, missing the point. Firstly, let's not discuss the balance sheet, because that can spin very quickly into dumb hypotheticals. It's not entirely a wealth issue, it's only passingly so with a vague understanding that wealth is involved.. BUT, the real issue is that we're 'happy' to have gotten those contributions. I'm looking at the cost. How many horrible lives are these 'contributions' worth? Should we create a thousand Van Goghs to get one Einstein? A hundred? Ten thousand? A hundred Einsteins per van Gogh? Where's the line you're willing to have other people pay so others can enjoy these 'great contributions'?

The point is that these people are just missing from the calculus. I know a couple kids with Downs Syndrome who are seemingly very happy and who are very loved. Should I just create Down Syndrome children willy nilly? "Look! Some are happy!" I could say. No, I'd be wrong to do so. Now, if nearly 100% of DS children were really happy, then it might be a different question.

Should a family (who can afford it) be allowed to delibertately make kids with AS? Why not? People argue we have the right to make children, especially the right to make happy children! I think your intuition is that we don't have this right to deliberately make these children, to sort through my sperm and modify it so I can get a super-happy IVF baby.

What's an 'above average life'? I'm not really sure. I can recognise a crummy life when I see one. And the owner of a life has a much finer understanding regarding the quality of their own lives. No one asked for their own lives, but they're forced to live with the life that someone gave them. "But van Gogh painted great!", yes, but he lived a tormented life. How many tormented lives should we make to have great paintings?

Ironically, the reason people wouldn't deliberately make DS or AS babies is because they want healthy ones for their own pleasure.

The thing is, I'm not opposed to the general sentiment. As Illram points out, it's just good family planning. And if you consider parents like "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua, who are pretty self-evidently trying to be good parents, instead of trying to raise good children, I'd say that reframing the debate as one about the extent to which a parent can harm their children for their own pleasure is probably worthwhile. But as useful as this is as a rhetorical tool, it just doesn't stand up as a hard moral code to me. Let alone a category of moral wrong that the state ought to legislate on.

Maybe if there were more DS or AS babies being born for their parents' pleasure, I might take this more seriously, but as it stands I just don't see how anyone can actually use this in the real world.

 

[Borachio]

"Life's not fair" is really just another way of saying, "I don't care about the problems of others and want to remove my responsibility to help them."

Life isn't fair (indeed I've been banking on it not being fair all my life).

I do though care about the problems of others and sincerely would like to help them.

But it's not always very clear what's the best thing to do.

Or even whether it is my responsibility to do anything.

 

[El_Machinae]

Maybe if there were more DS or AS babies being born for their parents' pleasure, I might take this more seriously, but as it stands I just don't see how anyone can actually use this in the real world.

That's partially because you've accepted the outlier examples, but not the more middle examples. In the longrun, how is deliberately making a DS baby wildly different from making a child who grows up to have an IQ of 70 due to poor parenting, education, and nutrition? The alcoholic just wants someone to love, so she is morally 'allowed' to make an FAS baby who has to live with her decision for 70+ years? "But some FAS babies can be happy!" isn't really a mitigating factor.

And if the deliberate DS or FAS baby is teetering on unacceptable, is that because they're outliers or because they obviously have a below-average chance of an average life?

My point is that I think the outliers are 'obviously' unacceptable, but I recognise that there's some slippery slope there. What makes that gradient? I cannot think of any metric other than 'below average' being some type of excellent marking point.

 

[Mise]

Well it's that lack of any rigorous moral principle that makes it not work. I've accepted the outlier examples as prima facie evidence that there is something compelling us to not have children in those cases. I haven't accepted that this 'something' is the idea that we shouldn't have children if we have good reason to believe they will have below average lives. I haven't accepted it because it lacks intellectual rigour and justification within a moral framework. What you're doing is like saying "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. This is because the sun runs on a big track that goes up in the air and comes back down again." That's what I'm hearing when you talk about not having children unless they will have above average lives. You can't use those examples as evidence that your particular theory is the correct one. Those examples simply mean that some theory is necessary, not that any theory to explain it is automatically true. And your theory also fails to fit into any moral philosophy I have accepted (c.f. the Earth revolves around its axis); and the evidence for those moral philosophies being true is huge in my mind (c.f. astronomical observations; foucault's pendulum). To fit your explanation into an acceptable moral theory will require more justification than you've provided so far. Alternatively, to create a new moral theory that would accomodate this "below average" principle would similarly require more justification.

So as a rhetorical tool or as part of good family planning, yeah, this is a useful thought experiment. But I'm certainly not going to conclude that half the world's population shouldn't exist, and of the half that remain, half of them shouldn't have children.


EDIT: More succinctly, while I accept that DS and AS are prima facie evidence that we shouldn't have children in those cases, I also accept that any policy or moral philosophy that forbids vast swathes of the human race from ever having children is prima facie evidence that that policy or moral philosophy is wrong.

 

[Flying Pig]

Of course I think people should care and give their time to help others. But that doesn't imply that people are owed (entitled) said help.

What you receive from generosity and kindness are not entitlements.

Wouldn't it be nice if people were, though? Rather than having to scrape around for favours, people were just given what they need as a matter of course?

 

[El_Machinae]

That's what I'm hearing when you talk about not having children unless they will have above average lives.

Well, let's flip it around. Should people have children who will have below average lives? Or (more importantly) if the children will end up perceiving it to be true?

I mean, what gives someone the right to foist a low-quality existence onto someone else?

But I'm certainly not going to conclude that half the world's population shouldn't exist, and of the half that remain, half of them shouldn't have children.

That's not really what I am saying. Firstly, there are a host of exogenous factors that influence the final outcome. As people note: there was just no way to know that the kids lives would end up sucking (from their perspective). I am just saying that there's a moral error committed when you intentionally (or reasonably could know) that the person's life will end up sucking.

In the long run, obviously half of people will have below average lives, but I'm not saying it was a moral error to make those people, you just couldn't have known. A doctor prescribing the wrong treatment for a disease isn't making a moral error, unless he intentionally does so.

Remember, the thread is asking what we're entitled to. Some people think that everyone is entitled to have kids. I think that kids are entitled to having a reasonable shot. These entitlements conflict and so need some type of balancing act. Again, to emphasise, this isn't really a cry for government intervention: it's well beyond a government to handle.

 

[Mise]

Well, let's flip it around. Should people have children who will have below average lives? Or (more importantly) if the children will end up perceiving it to be true?

Yes.

I mean, what gives someone the right to foist a low-quality existence onto someone else?

I dunno, what gives ITV the right to foist low quality football commentary in England international matches? This is a rhetorical question, of the most literal kind.

That's not really what I am saying. Firstly, there are a host of exogenous factors that influence the final outcome. As people note: there was just no way to know that the kids lives would end up sucking (from their perspective). I am just saying that there's a moral error committed when you intentionally (or reasonably could know) that the person's life will end up sucking.

In the long run, obviously half of people will have below average lives, but I'm not saying it was a moral error to make those people, you just couldn't have known. A doctor prescribing the wrong treatment for a disease isn't making a moral error, unless he intentionally does so.

Remember, the thread is asking what we're entitled to. Some people think that everyone is entitled to have kids. I think that kids are entitled to having a reasonable shot. These entitlements conflict and so need some type of balancing act. Again, to emphasise, this isn't really a cry for government intervention: it's well beyond a government to handle.

Ok well now we're back to "I have no evidence that my future child will regret being born". Because I literally have no evidence at all. I know it for outliers, like inherited diseases, but not for anything else. So it works fine for outliers - the obvious examples we've been talking about - but it doesn't actually add anything beyond that, because after the obvious you get into the "I have no evidence" territory.

How do you get from "my child regrets being born" to "below average"?

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes.

Why?

I dunno, what gives ITV the right to foist low quality football commentary in England international matches? This is a rhetorical question, of the most literal kind.

Freedom of speech balanced with your freedom to opt out. I don't think they have the right to follow you around and foist the sound into your ears if you're completely unwilling to listen. Then we get into some new sound pollution hypothetical.

How do you get from "my child regrets being born" to "below average"?

Good question. I dunno. The entirety of my intuition is that it's the first category is what I am mostly concerned with.

You'll note that with a clever amount of brain damage, a child can has a substandard life and not have the brain capacity to resent its own existence. By all expectations, the AS child never really seems to form those thoughts at rate lower than in normal society. That said, I don't really know, I'm just assuming that a constantly sunny outlook leads to lower rates of resentment.

 

[Mise]

Well that's just one problem with "perceived" below average. Someone born in the third world is highly likely to perceive their lives to be worse than average. I answered "yes" to the first question because there are countless billions of people who have or would perceive themselves to have a below average life.

I totally get your intuition being in the first category. It is for me, too. But that's because, in my mind, the intuition behind "my child regrets being born" is better captured by "my child would consent to live this life". And since consent is already part of our existing moral and legal system, I'd rather we talked about that. If you believe that your child wouldn't consent to being born, then yeah, don't have the child. I suppose this is my answer to the AS hypothetical.

It has tricky implications for abortion, but I'm happy to "weigh up" rights if we have to. EDIT: Actually, I don't have to. Childbirth requires the consent of both future-child and parent, just as sex requires the consent of both partners.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like the explicit flip to 'future consent'. That's where I think I was heading, I just couldn't articulate it. Now, I am not sure about how necessary it is that they 'would' consent. As in, if there must be the explicit expectation of implicit consent. I am not sure my dog 'can' consent to its having been born. I'm not sure it was a moral crime to breed him. That said, there are many 'potential' animal lives where I think the mere creation of that animal was a moral error. As far as I can tell my dog is happy. I kinda knew that would happen before I started.

 

[Zelig]

Someone born in the third world is highly likely to perceive their lives to be worse than average.

AFAIK, this is not the case. There's not much of correlation between wealth and happiness. As I alluded to before (poor people should move to the third world), there seems to some correlation with happiness and not being more poor than your peers.