Morally Permissible to Procreate?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Morally Permissible to Procreate? » Morally Permissible to Procreate?

Morally Permissible to Procreate?

Page: 1 2

Morally Permissible to Procreate?

yasseford
Almost Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 52

Posted 07/01/09 - 10:02 AM: Subject: Morally Permissible to Procreate?	#1
Given the amount of orphaned babies/children/teenagers in the world, is it morally permissible for two people to procreate with each other instead of providing one of these orphans with love and care that the orphans would not receive, growing up parentless and poor, or dying at a young age by painful yet easily preventable illnesses? To procreate gives one a piece of his or her self, 50% of the DNA of the child is shared by that person and their genetic information will live on. This is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint but there seems to be nothing morally "good" about it. On the other hand, with every biological child that one conceives, that is one less orphaned child that one could conceivably support. I've organized the following argument on the basis of "finances (e.g., feeding, clothing, and other monetary costs for the child)," but one could simply add to finances the time required to care for a child, or whatever other need one can think of. Argument Premise 1: It is better for an orphan to live with loving and caring parents than to grow up in an orphanage, homeless, and/or die at an early age due to lack of proper care. Premise 2: Whenever a family procreates, they are at least financially obligated to care for that child. Premise 3: For every intentionally-created biological child that a family must financially support, that family could have instead supported an orphan by adopting instead of procreating. Premise 4: To deny a child care that one admittedly can provide, thus leading the child to grow up in an orphanage, homeless, and/or die at an early age, is morally wrong. Conclusion: It is always morally impermissible to intentionally procreate when one could adopt instead. This statement has a lot of weight to it, and it's clear that 99.999% of the world at least does not support this, much less practice it. Is the argument valid and sound? This argument is based upon a sort of utilitarian standard, and a predicted objection is that while it is morally supererogatory to adopt, no one should be obligated to do so. But for every child one biologically creates, one taxes the resources of their environment for a new human instead of bring a human in need to their environment to use these resources, and so it seems that by not following the prescribed course of adopting, one might be harming orphaned children. One might be reminded of Peter Singer's article (the name of the title fails me) which seems to go along the same guidelines as this argument, but reaches much further, saying that all families can easily live off of $30,000 annually, and spending any extra money toward luxuries, which otherwise could be spent on charities or other causes, would be morally wrong. I do not wish to discuss this broader topic, but some of the objections and responses associated with this argument may be applicable here. Some side thoughts: This argument brings into question the concept of love, as well. Would it be easier or harder to love something that does not share your DNA? Common sense would say that one's DNA makeup should have no bearing on love, and in fact, to base love upon such seems almost irrational, and at least heartless. We all might relish the idea of having a little version of ourselves running around - a being that came from you, that is part of you. This must be an amazing feeling and I do not wish to underplay its importance, as I myself yearn for this feeling. However, in the larger scheme of things, it seems as though there are higher priorities.
Yasseford

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 07/01/09 - 10:41 AM:	#2
If Earth can sustain a finite number of people, and if the population continues to grow, then eventually there will be more people than we can sustain, and some sort of population restriction will be in order -- maybe adoption. So the OP has cogency at least to the extent that adoption instead of procreation is a possible solution to a possible problem. However, I think there are some flaws in the argument. As a first step toward evaluating it, notice that the first two premises are superfluous. We can concentrate our attention on the following valid fragment: Premise 3: For every intentionally-created biological child that a family must financially support, that family could have instead supported an orphan by adopting instead of procreating. Premise 4: To deny a child care that one admittedly can provide, thus leading the child to grow up in an orphanage, homeless, and/or die at an early age, is morally wrong. Conclusion: It is always morally impermissible to intentionally procreate when one could adopt instead. I'm not convinced by the argument for 4. The statement "for every child one biologically creates, one taxes the resources of their environment" seems to assume that procreation is a zero-sum game -- but if that were true, we would have begun starving at the birth of Cain and Abel. At least to an extent, population increase can also increase resources, sometimes with increasing returns.

yasseford
Almost Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 52

Posted 07/01/09 - 10:55 AM:	#3
You bring up a good objection, in that this argument, at least at other times in the history of human civilization, would not seem sound. My response lies in Premise 4 with the line "could adopt," ie, one possesses the means necessary for locating and assuming guardianship over a child that is homeless, lives in an orphanage, etc. Obviously, a sheep herder in ancient Sumeria would more than likely have no knowledge of any needy children. By that same token, a present day family composed of an unemployed, alcoholic male would never pass the screening to adopt a needy child, and therefore could not assume guardianship over such a child.
Yasseford

WeAllFallDown
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/03/09 - 07:06 AM:	#4
yasseford wrote: To procreate gives one a piece of his or her self, 50% of the DNA of the child is shared by that person and their genetic information will live on. Since the genes you passed on are halved every generation, it only takes a few generations for your relatives to be no more like you in terms of genetic make-up than an average person from the population. So really you aren't leaving anything behind for very long. yasseford wrote: Some side thoughts: This argument brings into question the concept of love, as well. Would it be easier or harder to love something that does not share your DNA? Common sense would say that one's DNA makeup should have no bearing on love, and in fact, to base love upon such seems almost irrational, and at least heartless. We all might relish the idea of having a little version of ourselves running around - a being that came from you, that is part of you. This must be an amazing feeling and I do not wish to underplay its importance, as I myself yearn for this feeling. However, in the larger scheme of things, it seems as though there are higher priorities. Yes, it is much easier to love those that are like us (genetically). Love (in most of its forms) is most certainly irrational. Being that the world is so overpopulated, wouldn't it be better we didn't reproduce regardless? Edited by Incision on 07/03/09 - 02:12 PM. Reason: punctuation

bajek
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 07/03/09 - 04:21 PM:	#5
Roughly speaking, I agree with the first entry's argument. There are some nuances, like that "could" adopt should also be thought of as a function of the moral "fitness" of the adoptive parent to take care of the orphan, etc. Nonetheless, the first post reflects thoughts I've had for a very long time. I would suggest that until all of the orphans are taken care of, and the total population number of humans on the planet is brought to a sustainable level and rate of change, generating new babies is immoral. The complication kicks in when the issue of 'love' does. You have to explore the necessity for 'love' in a child's upbringing. I'm yet to hear a sound definition of the word 'love' either for one's children, or in the romantic sense, that easily lends itself as a basis for moral arguments, and yet to neglect this aspect of, say, rearing children, is surely some kind of gap in any proposed argument. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine a woman who, instead of adopting an orphan, was somehow able to give birth to it instead as though it was her own biological child, even though it would have someone else's DNA. I would posit that in such a case, it would be far easier for her to love the child -- whatever 'love' means -- than it is for many parents to love orphans adopted sometime after they're born. My guess would be the the emotional weight of giving birth far outweighs any conscious awareness of whose DNA is whose. So, really, the question boils down to whether the suffering, environmental costs, etc. that is minimised by adoption of an orphan is a greater good than if we permitted the orphan to stay parentless and made a new baby who could be loved genuinely, that is loved in the way that parents can love their own biological offspring, but not adopted offspring. I may be mistaken, but my intuition says that probably abstaining from having new children and adopting because of the human moral and environmental benefits is still the greater good.

WeAllFallDown
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/04/09 - 12:24 AM:	#6
bajek wrote: The complication kicks in when the issue of 'love' does. You have to explore the necessity for 'love' in a child's upbringing. I'm yet to hear a sound definition of the word 'love' either for one's children, or in the romantic sense, that easily lends itself as a basis for moral arguments, and yet to neglect this aspect of, say, rearing children, is surely some kind of gap in any proposed argument. The 'love' people feel for their children is just a feeling that makes them want to care for the child, and act in the childs interests. Being that it is the actions that result from the feeling(love) that actually matters to the child and not the feeling itself. Then surely you can just will yourself to act in that way? bajek wrote: Here's a thought experiment: Imagine a woman who, instead of adopting an orphan, was somehow able to give birth to it instead as though it was her own biological child, even though it would have someone else's DNA. I would posit that in such a case, it would be far easier for her to love the child -- whatever 'love' means -- than it is for many parents to love orphans adopted sometime after they're born. My guess would be the the emotional weight of giving birth far outweighs any conscious awareness of whose DNA is whose. I agree that for women it is probably true, because women have evolved giving birth to their children(while men havn't), it would be expected that women would need to be less aware of their(the childs) genes, because if it comes out of them, its theirs. Men on the other hand would be more aware of the genes, because they can't be sure their partner is faithful and in terms of reproductive success and natural selection, raising someone elses child is a very big disadvantage. This is shown when, it is often the woman(or her family members) will say to the man that the baby resembles him in some way ("I think he has your eyes"), in doing this they are trying to reassure him that its his so he will invest(time, resources...love?) in it. Also, males tend to invest less(on average) in their children than women, this is also due to the uncertainty of whether the child is actually theirs. bajek wrote: So, really, the question boils down to whether the suffering, environmental costs, etc. that is minimised by adoption of an orphan is a greater good than if we permitted the orphan to stay parentless and made a new baby who could be loved genuinely, that is loved in the way that parents can love their own biological offspring, but not adopted offspring. I may be mistaken, but my intuition says that probably abstaining from having new children and adopting because of the human moral and environmental benefits is still the greater good. I agree that it is better to adopt than to procreate. Before I came across this thread I already thought that because the world is so overpopulated it was morally right to refrain from having children. Whether it is practical(to adopt instead) on a large scale is another matter.

ducttape
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 07/04/09 - 02:50 AM:	#7
yasseford wrote: Would it be easier or harder to love something that does not share your DNA? It seems evident that it is harder to love someone that does not share your DNA. Siblings have on average 50% of your genes, cousins 25%, 2nd cousins 12.5%, nephews/neices 25%, etc. There seems to be a direct relationship between the strength of a family bond and the amount of DNA common to the pair. It is mere anecdotal evidence but in my experience of adopted children, although the parents usually do love them deeply, they never attain the full status of "child" and often suffer severe abandonment issues. I'm just speculating here, because I am not aware of any studies on the subject, but it seems obvious from an evolutionary standpoint that one has less interest in protecting the genes of another than protecting ones own genes. Regardless, there are children that need adopting and I would agree that taking such a child into ones care is a virtuous thing to do. WeAllFallDown wrote: Whether it is practical(to adopt instead) on a large scale is another matter. Is a good point - the baby trade that we hear of is a result of there not being enough babies to adopt, at least from developed countries. The comments about the world being overpopulated are very valid, but I have a different reason for procreation being morally reprehensible. What gives a person the right to bring another into existence? The baby that we have so much fun making has no say in the matter yet he is the one who is ultimately affected by the decision. Simply because it is in our human nature is not enough to justify procreation.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3641

Posted 07/04/09 - 03:36 AM:	#8
yasseford wrote: This is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint but there seems to be nothing morally "good" about it. If nobody procreated, we would eventually all die out, likewise all that is good, so there is something good about procreation. There is also something good about caring for your own offspring rather than that of others, for everyone cared about the offspring of others, or even just equally of all, good genes will not survive as well and bad genes will survive better. WeAllFallDown wrote: Since the genes you passed on are halved every generation, it only takes a few generations for your relatives to be no more like you in terms of genetic make-up than an average person from the population. So really you aren't leaving anything behind for very long. You fail to take into account that you can have multiple children. If each generation has 2 children, your genes will on average be at the same level. If each generation has 4 children, your genes will on average have doubled in quantity.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

WeAllFallDown
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/04/09 - 06:16 AM:	#9
keda wrote: You fail to take into account that you can have multiple children. If each generation has 2 children, your genes will on average be at the same level. If each generation has 4 children, your genes will on average have doubled in quantity. I dont think I made it clear what I meant exactly. What I meant was that when you get say, eight generations down you will have about a 1/128 chance of sharing any particular gene with your relative, which is about the same chance as sharing a gene with a random person from the population. What I was trying to show was, that by having children, your distant relatives will be no more like you than if you adopt. Also, being that any gene you have(that is not already widespread in the gene pool) is highly unlikely to confer a significant/if any reproductive advantage, because the mutation rate is extremely low and almost all mutations are bad. Thus having more children(say 4) isnt likely to make any difference to the gene pool as a whole. I hope this clears up what I meant. ducttape wrote: Is a good point - the baby trade that we hear of is a result of there not being enough babies to adopt, at least from developed countries. True, and if we were to adopt children from poverty stricken third world countries, we are essentially turning them over night from 'have-nots' into 'haves', increasing their consumption of the worlds limited resources. Yet at the same time we have not at all helpped their country, we have just opened a spot that will be filled by another child, and the cycle of poverty there will continue. ducttape wrote: The comments about the world being overpopulated are very valid, but I have a different reason for procreation being morally reprehensible. What gives a person the right to bring another into existence? The baby that we have so much fun making has no say in the matter yet he is the one who is ultimately affected by the decision. Simply because it is in our human nature is not enough to justify procreation. I find this an interesting point. Could we reason that, if they want, they can take themselves out of it? But this poses problems as it is likely that this will hurt others. Which brings up another point. Is it morally right/wrong to procreate depending on whether you have good or bad genes? Obviously what are good or bad traits is debatable, and the likelihood that any given one will be passed on to your offspring can be questioned. But, I have read that our level of happiness is determined about 40-50% by our genes. I think most of us could atleast agree that we want our children to be happy. So if we are unhappy and further evidence to the fact that it is genetic, our siblings are also unhappy. Should we risk having unhappy children?

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3641

Posted 07/04/09 - 07:09 AM:	#10
WeAllFallDown wrote: What I was trying to show was, that by having children, your distant relatives will be no more like you than if you adopt. Theoretically this is not true, even though any particular relative will be less and less likely to have genes in common after each generation. The likelyhood will always be greater given any number of generations. My point is, it is irrelevant how likely a particular gene of yours is found in a particular relative, but in the sum total of your relatives, which increase for each generation, the more children each have. If each have more than 2 on average, your genes will increase in the gene pool, which is the point. Also, being that any gene you have(that is not already widespread in the gene pool) is highly unlikely to confer a significant/if any reproductive advantage, because the mutation rate is extremely low and almost all mutations are bad. Thus having more children(say 4) isnt likely to make any difference to the gene pool as a whole. I hope this clears up what I meant. I don't think that follows. All genes that have reproductive advantages are valuable, not just those that are rare. But even the rare would be good to make widespread through having more children. I don't see what the mutations have to do with anything.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.