Do You Want Kids? - General "Have Kids!" Sperging Thread [for or against that sentiment]

[CobraPlissken]

No, and I never did. I appreciate my privacy, independence, peace, and quiet too much to share my life with someone else in a daily basis. Bringing a child to this world would just make us — me, the child and whoever is crazy enough to try to breed with me — deeply miserable and resentful, and kids specially don't deserve it.

 

[TheProdigalStunna]

My worldview about procreation mainly comes from David Benatar and his book Better Never to Have Been. He also debated Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris (and humiliated them dare I say) so I dont think I can add anything unique to his antinatalism

It's not exactly an accomplishment to trounce either of them in a debate. Antinatalism is still dumb, and David Benatar's premises are still self-contradicting.

 

[Yidhra]

It's not exactly an accomplishment to trounce either of them in a debate. Antinatalism is still dumb, and David Benatar's premises are still self-contradicting.

I gave them as an example because they are well known, why do you think An is dumb and in what way?

 

[knobslobbin]

Children are for people who have hope for a better future (aka delusional) or sadists who want company in their suffering. Either way, be less white.

 

[TheProdigalStunna]

I gave them as an example because they are well known, why do you think An is dumb and in what way?

Well, first and foremost, I am a Roman Catholic, so I always believe that human life is a gift from God, that the human being is imprinted with the Imago Dei, and that more human beings brought into the world brings greater glory to God. That alone makes me incompatible with Anti-Natalism. But let's just say I was a materialist atheist. I would still find David Benatar's anti-natalism wanting.

First and foremost, he qualifies his Anti-Natalism under a kind of utilitarianism where "suffering = bad", and thus morality largely consists of the prevention of suffering. Now, right off the bat, you can tell what's wrong with this argument if you take a strictly hedonic point of view. Most people's estimations of their own lives is usually a net positive, and if subjective experience alone is to be the arbiter of good and bad, the positive affect thus makes it morally permissible, perhaps even morally imperative, to bring more sentient beings in the world. Sure, they may have experience more suffering over time, but if that suffering is glossed over by a sense of pollyanna-ism, then so what? Hedonic utilitarianism makes subjective experience the measure of all things, and thus a positive affect, even if gained under a kind of delusion, must be respected as having intrinsic moral worth.

However, David Benatar is more of a negative utilitarian if I'm not mistaken, and so pleasure has no intrinsic moral value and suffering does. That may be useful for measuring for individual experiences, but nevertheless his own criteria is about the moral value of the event of coming into being. The way I see it, this event of "coming into being" as opposed to "never coming into being" means that the event must be measured as any other event. The event, thus, is one's whole life, and moral criteria is about the suffering over one's whole life. Stubbing your toe = bad, sure enough, because that's a small event, and one's life cannot be reduced to such a simple case where clearly no good came out of it. However, life itself must be evaluated in a similar way of good and bad if we are to morally evaluate the event of coming into being. That event can be reduced to the "good" or "bad" of one's affect over their own life, and as one's affect over the event is on the whole good if we take subjective experience as its measure, that means the event of coming can be reduced to a good event. The "never coming into being", is a sort of neutral ground if you could possibly call it an event, as there is no suffering or pleasure. It cannot be commensurate with an event that is on the whole good, even if suffering is present in events that take place because of that event, because the goodness of the event trumps the suffering as the goodness is the final subjective affect of the event of being born.

I hope that makes sense. Of course, all of this goes into the failings of every form of utilitarianism, which is that it makes subjective experience the arbiter of good and evil, which is eventually going to be a flimsy basis for moraltiy. On the whole, I think Benatar largely just projects his own misery onto the rest of humanity, especially in his presumptuous surrogacy over other people's suffering, as if he understands it better than they can. There are other interesting pessimists out there, like Schopenhauer and Cioran, who do a better job more as romantics (who have some sense of the spiritual dimension of Man) rather than trying to justify their misery as everyone else's with a hoary utilitarianism.

 

[Witthel]

I like the idea of having kids, but I'm still definitely not cut out for being a parent considering I can barely deal with other people, let alone kids.

But I'm only in my early 20s so who knows, this may change as I get older.

 

[Android raptor]

It's not just that I don't want kids, it's that I'm someone who shouldn't have them. I am not capable of properly caring for a child. The kid would be who would suffer most if I had one.

Plus they're gross, loud, and massively expensive. Like a really shit, really time consuming, difficult to care for pet that isnt even cute.

 

[CommonSenseWYAHoney]

No. I want to die alone.

On a more serious note (I was only partly joking), I’ve never wanted a family. Kids are ok, but I can’t commit to correctly raising any.

 

[Bass]

Well, first and foremost, I am a Roman Catholic, so I always believe that human life is a gift from God, that the human being is imprinted with the Imago Dei, and that more human beings brought into the world brings greater glory to God. That alone makes me incompatible with Anti-Natalism. But let's just say I was a materialist atheist. I would still find David Benatar's anti-natalism wanting.

First and foremost, he qualifies his Anti-Natalism under a kind of utilitarianism where "suffering = bad", and thus morality largely consists of the prevention of suffering. Now, right off the bat, you can tell what's wrong with this argument if you take a strictly hedonic point of view. Most people's estimations of their own lives is usually a net positive, and if subjective experience alone is to be the arbiter of good and bad, the positive affect thus makes it morally permissible, perhaps even morally imperative, to bring more sentient beings in the world. Sure, they may have experience more suffering over time, but if that suffering is glossed over by a sense of pollyanna-ism, then so what? Hedonic utilitarianism makes subjective experience the measure of all things, and thus a positive affect, even if gained under a kind of delusion, must be respected as having intrinsic moral worth.

However, David Benatar is more of a negative utilitarian if I'm not mistaken, and so pleasure has no intrinsic moral value and suffering does. That may be useful for measuring for individual experiences, but nevertheless his own criteria is about the moral value of the event of coming into being. The way I see it, this event of "coming into being" as opposed to "never coming into being" means that the event must be measured as any other event. The event, thus, is one's whole life, and moral criteria is about the suffering over one's whole life. Stubbing your toe = bad, sure enough, because that's a small event, and one's life cannot be reduced to such a simple case where clearly no good came out of it. However, life itself must be evaluated in a similar way of good and bad if we are to morally evaluate the event of coming into being. That event can be reduced to the "good" or "bad" of one's affect over their own life, and as one's affect over the event is on the whole good if we take subjective experience as its measure, that means the event of coming can be reduced to a good event. The "never coming into being", is a sort of neutral ground if you could possibly call it an event, as there is no suffering or pleasure. It cannot be commensurate with an event that is on the whole good, even if suffering is present in events that take place because of that event, because the goodness of the event trumps the suffering as the goodness is the final subjective affect of the event of being born.

I hope that makes sense. Of course, all of this goes into the failings of every form of utilitarianism, which is that it makes subjective experience the arbiter of good and evil, which is eventually going to be a flimsy basis for moraltiy. On the whole, I think Benatar largely just projects his own misery onto the rest of humanity, especially in his presumptuous surrogacy over other people's suffering, as if he understands it better than they can. There are other interesting pessimists out there, like Schopenhauer and Cioran, who do a better job more as romantics (who have some sense of the spiritual dimension of Man) rather than trying to justify their misery as everyone else's with a hoary utilitarianism.

Brah, the topic is a yes or no question.

 

[RussianParasite]

I was warned my whole life that kids are terrible, loud, dirty etc. Maybe my expectations were just set really low, but they really aren’t that bad.

 

[shameful existence]

The (philosophical) antinatalists I've met were generally quite intelligent. It requires intelligence to convince yourself that obviously stupid opinions, particularly if they advocate for some sort of self-annihilation, are moral.

 

[WhatNemesisMeans]

Yes, but only if I can find a reliable way to prevent them from inheriting their mother's potato nose. It would look so damn silly on a small child.

 

[Don't Tread on Me]

I want kids but I hate women.

 

[TheProdigalStunna]

Brah, the topic is a yes or no question.

Yes.

 

[RabidWombat]

Hell no. I don't have that much disposable income and my temper makes me a bad candidate anyway.

 

[Skel Jug]

I want kids but I hate women.

With all due respect

What are you? fucking full-gay, or some incel?

 

[Don't Tread on Me]

With all due respect

What are you? fucking full-gay, or some incel?

I guess the term is volcel? It's certainly not involuntary, it's my choice.

 

[HymanHive]

Nahh.

I'm too irresponsible, childish and selfish to want to spend the rest of my life tied to some other fucker. Plus, my childhood was shite, so having a kid would mean I have to re-live that. I'll pass thanks.

 

[Panty Shroom]

No. I've just never desired them. I've tried to imagine life with small dependant humans around but it brings forth no intense emotions.

 

[eDove]

Yes