Help in great distress

שו”ת › Category: philosophy › Help in great distress

asked 4 years ago

Hello, Michi.
I am a person of faith and criticism, and I recently came across an article that shocked me from a conceptual perspective. The article talks about antinatalism, which is the claim that it is immoral to have children.
Unfortunately, I was convinced by the article and I really don’t know what to do with my life in terms of marriage and children.
I pray you have arguments to refute the article, you are my last address.
https://www.articles.co.il/article/183318&from_mobile=1

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 4 years ago

I skimmed and I disagree. The main reason for the disagreement is that I am not gambling on a person’s life or happiness. If a person exists and I put them in a gambling situation, there might be room for debate. But here the alternative is that this person would not exist. I am not harming a particular person when I put them in a gambling situation, since without this gambling they would not exist. I expanded on this in several places on the site when I dealt with the wrongful procreation argument (search here on the site). Beyond that, even if we ignore the previous distinction and treat it as if I were actually putting someone in a bet. It seems to me that the argument here is also incorrect. First, most of us prefer to live to die. Very few commit suicide. Beyond that, everyone has the option of committing suicide if they find themselves in such an extreme situation that they justify it in their eyes. At most, a parent can be told to provide their child with the means to commit suicide if they so desire. In addition, each of us puts others in bets with very serious consequences, such as driving on the road. Therefore, it is not true that there is a categorical prohibition against putting someone in a bet. Additionally, the existence of the world and humanity is contingent on us taking this gamble. Therefore, against the negative value, there is a positive value of the existence of life in the world. In addition, people’s happiness will not exist if children are not born. Some of them will live in sorrow and others in happiness. Why are the former preferable to the latter? In addition, if we do not bring children into the world, we condemn the world to suffering, because it cannot exist without a logical age pyramid, as we see now in China. It was only allowed to have one child there, and an inverted age pyramid was created that does not allow them to exist (few young people and many old people). No wonder they changed it too. The same is true in Europe, except that there it is by people’s choice. The combination of all these arguments shows that the argument is clearly implausible. The only argument that seems plausible to me is the argument of population explosion. But it doesn’t negate culture, it only denies that culture is wild. All this without the commandment to multiply, of course.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

יוסף replied 4 years ago

According to the first explanation (that there is no person you are harming), I understand that there is also no moral problem in giving birth to a baby who will be slaughtered or thrown away to die of starvation immediately after birth???

מיכי Staff replied 4 years ago

In principle, that's true. The problem lies with the person who does this to him. But if I knew for sure that's what would happen to him, I would consider not bringing him into the world.

יוסף replied 4 years ago

Why would you consider this? You say there is no problem with the act of bringing a child into the world, so why are you even considering it?

מיכי replied 4 years ago

Because even if I'm not guilty, it's still right to spare suffering (caused through no fault of mine).

יוסף replied 4 years ago

Well, then I didn't understand what this argument had to do with my question. I didn't claim that you were guilty, but that it is right to save suffering = not right to have children.

מיכי replied 4 years ago

I explained, and I will come back. If it were my wrong, the view might have been different. But it is not. If there was suffering, there certainly might have been room for a different view. But it is not. And add the rest of my words and the commandment.

לך במיוחד מומלץ. מוסרית, להביא ילדים replied 4 years ago

On the 12th of November, 2019, to Joseph,

Hello,

Some people don't want children for fear that it will interfere with their careers and their enjoyment of life. I am happy to read in your words that you are not in this direction. Your concern is for the suffering that will be experienced by the children you will bear.

A person is sent into this world to act in it. He is here on a mission, to make himself and the world better and more beautiful. A mission is challenging insofar as it involves effort and difficulty. Difficulties strengthen a person, and his success in dealing with difficulties is what gives him flavor and meaning to his life.

Someone who lives in this mindset is not frightened or broken by suffering and difficulty, but turns them into a challenge to cope with. Just as a fighter in an elite unit or a competitive athlete is not frightened by his grueling training.

It is good for everyone to have children, who also give them peace and joy. There is a taste in life when one invests in nurturing them, giving them and receiving love and satisfaction from them. They will be a source of comfort and help in their old age, and they will continue the good qualities that their parents instilled in them even after a hundred and twenty.

You, whose soul is determined to prevent all suffering from your neighbor, will be a wonderful parent for your children. Do everything you can to make life better for them, and give them tools that will enable them to successfully cope with life's challenges. Therefore, you, in particular, are morally recommended to have children and nurture them.

Best regards, Hillel Feiner-Glossinos