Hypothetical Persons

[orthogonal]

Consider a couple living on a meager ration of food. They decide to have their first child even though it will mean having less food for the two of them. A child is born, and as expected the parents are forced to tighten their belts. But they love their new child and soon they want to have another child. The parents calculate that if the two of them consume the minimum number of calories possible to sustain their own lives, their two children will never go hungry. The second child is born and the parents tighten their belts to the last possible notch. Still, their new family brings them such joy that they feel the urge to have a third child. Now, the parents realize that the only way to feed a third child is if the two existing children would share their food. The parents further calculate that there would be enough food so that three children would never starve to death, however, the three children would all suffer constantly from hunger. The two existing children are far too young to give their consent, but the parents reason that if these children were old enough to decide, they should always prefer to go hungry rather than watch a sibling die of hunger. So, a third child is produced. Was the parent's decision to have a third child morally defensible?

Suppose that out of disgust with ourselves, humans everywhere suddenly decided to stop reproducing. The human species would thus become extinct in just over a century. Despite the fact that billions of hypothetical humans would lose their chance to live, not a single person would actually lose their life (If you think otherwise, I'd remind you that billions of deaths would similarly be prevented). There is no primary moral aspect to a disperse decision to end the human race through attrition. It would be a simple fact. Hypothetical humans don't possess lives to be lived or to be lost. Hypothetical humans have no rights.

Whenever an ethical judgment could be attached to a decision concerning reproduction, that judgment could only be negative. It could never be wrong not to bear a child, but (as the above case indicates) there clearly are situations in which it could be wrong to bear a child. The parents in the example above decided that their existing children should suffer in order that a hypothetical child might live. I believe that real children ought not suffer so that hypothetical children might live.

Michael

 

[storni]

I think that a couple ought to prevent several things before having any children. Food, a place to live, clothing, education, love, et cetera. If they are able to offer all these to children then I think it would be, personally thus ethically, correct to have a child.

I know that sometimes couples do not plan on these necessities before having children. And I think that is selfish despite the fact that they would try to do their best (if they try to make it up later) when their children are born.

Children usually bring a new sort of happiness into the lives of couples, they become parents and that means they are responsible for the existance of someone. However, if children are just had because they are going to be a complement of their joy (but their rights are not going to be respected) then you can call that, somehow, careless and selfish.

Parents in the highlands of my country (which is underdeveloped) have a lot of children, and they cannot give them a standard education, or health services, etc. they do what they can, and they are said to be the joy of their lives. I hate the fact that many kids die because of a bad planification though: starvation, illnesses and ignorance are just a few reasons.

It is of course natural that humans are driven by emotions and thus they have children, without being fully aware of their future needs as individuals. I really think people should think more but nature is said to be wise. If there are not resources to support a child, this will die.

I believe that real children ought not suffer so that hypothetical children might live.

hypothetical children...then there would be millions, accounting for each couple who desires kids...I wouldnt call them children if they are not existant or imaginary. However, I agree in that no children actually living in the face of the earth should starve (or suffer in any way) because of a future and somehow selfish possibility.

 

[Adam]

Orthogonal

It is not morally defensible to create the third child. However, it is an ideal model, just as in electronics we use ideal models and realistic models. In the ideal model, you don't need to take into account the lag time across circuits and power loss through wires and such. In the model you present, you leave out development of resources.

Ideal model: No, it is not smart to have the third kid and deliberately starve them all.

Realistic model: Sure, have as many as you want, as long as you develop resources enough to provide sustenance and good health.

Globally? Mismanagement by governments and large companies means nobody is doing that development of resources.