Education deosn't necesserilly mean bettering yourself - A Right to Non-Existence?

See what the "bright" people in higher education establishments are coming up with ...

Can prospective children be said to have an interest that their parents not act in a way likely to lead to their birth when the parents are in a position to know that the life of the child, should it be born, would fall below some relevant threshold of well-being? (On the significance of the notion of a threshold level of well-being, see below, Sections 3 and 4). It is a widely held belief that under certain circumstances prospective parents should refrain from procreating owing to the predicted plight of the would-be child.

Since the publication of Narveson's seminal paper “Utilitarianism and New Generations” (Narveson 1967; see also Narveson 1973; Parfit 1976; Mulgan 2006, ch. 6), many have contributed to the debate on whether a person-affecting approach can account for the asymmetry of our procreational duties. The claimed asymmetry is the following: while prospective parents have no obligation to procreate out of regard for the interests of possible future children, they have an obligation not to beget children who are going to be miserable.

Some have argued that belief in such an asymmetry is incompatible with a person-affecting view and, more particularly, with the claim that possible people cannot be said to have, against us, a right to existence.[5] It is helpful at this point to make a distinction between the reasoning of potential parents that involves a possible future child and reasoning that involves their future child (see Govier 1979, 111). For instance, in deciding not to procreate at all people do not thereby harm the children they could have brought into existence (see sec. 2.1) since these are merely possible individuals. Thus, much reasoning about whether or not to have a child should concern the interests of those already alive; it is actual people's lives that would be affected by whether or not the child comes into existence (see Heyd 1992, 96-97). Nonetheless, people might make choices about procreation based on the welfare of their future child; that is, the welfare of that as yet non-existent individual would feature in their reasoning. When prospective parents decide in favor of having a child and now learn that this child, if born, would have a life that falls below a certain threshold of well-being they ought to consider the effects of their actions on their child and might well decide not to have a child after all.[6]

Objections to the asymmetry view presented above concern, in particular, the claim that after having made a decision to have children, prospective parents should revise their decision out of regard for their would-be child(ren) when they learn that the prospective child(ren) would have a life that falls below the relevant threshold. Why, under these circumstances, should parents revise their decision to have children out of regard for the children? The reason is that they would harm the would-be child, and, thus, arguably,[7] would act wrongly toward it. Here, harming their child-to-be would inflict a wrong on it. When prospective parents learn that their child would have a life that falls below the relevant threshold, they should refrain from having it, for by bringing the child into existence they would cause harm to it. In bringing about a child's existence they can harm this child.

This claim has been said to be incompatible with a person-affecting view (see Heyd 1992, 102, 105-06, 241-42). In Section 3, two notions of harm will be distinguished. The first relies on comparing a person's actual state to a counterfactual (or historical) state of the same person. The second relies on no such comparison. Both notions of harm require us to ask: for whom is the action worse? However, while both notions can be understood to reflect the person-affecting view as specified above (Section 1), only the first fulfills the stronger conditions of Parfit's “two-state requirement” or “better-or-worse-for-the-same-person” requirement: “we benefit or harm someone only if we cause him to be better or worse off than he would otherwise at that time have been” (Parfit 1984, 487). As will be shown in Section 3.2 below, in applying the second notion, we do not have to compare the value of life below some threshold with nonexistence in order to be able to claim that we can cause harm to a person by bringing about that person's existence.

Let us note that one can also defend the asymmetry of our procreational duties from an impersonal view, according to which the value of states of affairs is not reducible to how these states affect the interests of people. From an impersonal view one does not have to claim that prospective parents should refrain from procreation out of regard for the children they would have. Based on this view, two alternative interpretations of the asymmetry of our procreational duties have been discussed in the literature. One could adopt a version of negative consequentialism and argue that the universe would be better if present generations were guided by a criterion of right action that requires them to give priority to the prevention of suffering over the creation of good and happiness (see Heyd 1992, 59-60, for problems with this account). Alternatively, an impersonal approach could argue that we have a prima facie duty to promote over-all happiness by creating new well-off people — which duty, however, may be more easily overridden than duties not to cause harm. The paradoxical implications of the latter view have been prominently explored by Derek Parfit.

Stanford.edu

Views: 65

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

"Destroying the New World Order"

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

Latest Activity

tjdavis posted a photo
15 hours ago
Doc Vega posted a blog post
19 hours ago
Less Prone left a comment for Tammy
"Welcome"
yesterday
tjdavis posted a video

Mike Benz: DARPA & USAID are Weaponizing Music to Control Human Behavior

Watch every episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjonesMike Benz is a former State Department official and current Executive Dire...
yesterday
Tammy is now a member of 12160 Social Network
Tuesday
Less Prone commented on cheeki kea's photo
Thumbnail

The Cartel

"In his 1995 book; Bloodlines of the illuminati, Frits Sringmaier listed the following 13…"
Tuesday
tjdavis posted a photo
Tuesday
tjdavis posted a blog post
Tuesday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post What Four UFO Whistle Blowers All Suffered in Common?
"This falls in the category of political assassination, a very shameful policy of eliminating people…"
Tuesday
Doc Vega posted blog posts
Tuesday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post The Forest Devil
"cheeki kea Thank you, just one thing. The Choctaw Indian who came to the rescue was a war veteran…"
Monday
cheeki kea commented on Doc Vega's blog post The Forest Devil
"Well that is one fine story you've got going there Doc V. with a very interesting roll up. I…"
Monday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post “Night of Horror” Finland WWII 1939 and a Russian Massacre
"Just another bizarre chapter in WWII that seems more suspect as paranormal."
Sunday
Doc Vega's 7 blog posts were featured
Sunday
Burbia's blog post was featured

Former President Trump?

When was this article written? It is attributed to Victor Davis Hanson. He is a Fellow at Hoover…See More
Sunday
Less Prone commented on Burbia's blog post Former President Trump?
"It must be an unintended mistake "former". But that Trump demanded to keep Khan away is a…"
Sunday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post The Mistake We Made in America
Sunday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post “Night of Horror” Finland WWII 1939 and a Russian Massacre
Sunday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post “Night of Horror” Finland WWII 1939 and a Russian Massacre
"Quite an uplifting story of the winter war. Finland was overpowered by ten to one and could still…"
Sunday
Doc Vega posted a blog post

Elon Weighs in on Charlie Kirk's Assassination and How it is an Instrument of Social Control

For a very long time now there has been in place mass population behavioral control operations that…See More
Saturday

© 2025   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted