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
7 hours ago
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Is this proof that the story about Charlie Kirk's assassination is false?
"Less Prone as usual the official version of the truth does not match the evidence and is labeled…"
Saturday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post This Memorable Anthem Given by Nick Freitas Hit the Nail on the Head Please Listen!
"Charlie Kirk was getting very critical against Israel and had turned down a lucrative deal from the…"
Saturday
Doc Vega's blog post was featured

The Army of Government Launched Psychopaths

They walk among us in most college towns. They seem relatively reasonable until political…See More
Saturday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post Is this proof that the story about Charlie Kirk's assassination is false?
Saturday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post Is this proof that the story about Charlie Kirk's assassination is false?
"Have to sign in to YT for this. So. What I do is to go to https://ytdown.io/en/ and download…"
Saturday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Was a Planned Civil War Averted?
"cheeki kea, you are spot on. The old guard is about to collapse! "
Thursday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Alligator Creek and a Japanese Massacre
"cheeki kea, the Japanese thought they could expand their empire and exact enough damage on the US…"
Thursday
Michelle Reichert favorited Burbia's video
Wednesday
cheeki kea posted a video

NEW DOCUMENTARY - Dissent Into Madness

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/dissent-into-madness/What if the delusions of the dissidents are in fact real? What if their paranoid f...
Wednesday
cheeki kea commented on Doc Vega's blog post Alligator Creek and a Japanese Massacre
"Japan served themselves up no favours by inching out into the South Pacific as they soon found out.…"
Wednesday
cheeki kea commented on Doc Vega's blog post Was a Planned Civil War Averted?
"Their plans did not work out because we are the news now, and the old news is the enemy. "
Wednesday
Doc Vega posted a blog post

Alligator Creek and a Japanese Massacre

The year is 1942 just a few months after the Pearl Harbor disaster. Despite losses suffered by the…See More
Sep 30
Doc Vega commented on Burbia's video
Thumbnail

CHARLIE KIRK WAS CNP! JOSH REEVES 9-11-25

"With all due respect this guy comes off as a drunken asshole and he didn't even  know who…"
Sep 29
Doc Vega posted a blog post

Was a Planned Civil War Averted?

We are living in sadly historic times where good and evil are in battle all the time. Not that this…See More
Sep 28
Sandy posted a photo
Sep 28
Less Prone posted a video

President Trump addresses U.N. General Assembly - FULL SPEECH

President Donald Trump speaks at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City.Full video here: https://www.c-span.org/event/white-house-event/preside...
Sep 28
Burbia posted a video

2 MIN AGO: Western Provinces MAJOR New WEXIT Announcement - Canada EXPLODES!

In a stunning turn of events, Western provinces just made a major new WEXIT announcement — and it’s shaking the foundations of Canadian unity. Is Western sep...
Sep 27
Doc Vega posted a blog post

How You Provoke a Civil War

In the world of counter intelligence which is simply one aspect of many pertaining to asymmetrical…See More
Sep 26
Burbia commented on Burbia's video
Thumbnail

CHARLIE KIRK WAS CNP! JOSH REEVES 9-11-25

"I don't follow as much with Josh Reeves than I use to. He seems to be a documentary producing…"
Sep 25

© 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