Q&A: Help in a Major Crisis
Help in a Major Crisis
Question
Hello Michi,
I’m a believing and critical-minded person, and I recently came across an article that shook me conceptually. The article is about antinatalism, which is the claim that it is immoral to have children.
Unfortunately, I was convinced by the article, and I truly don’t know what to do with my life in terms of marriage and children.
I’m praying that you have arguments to refute the article; you’re my last address.
https://www.articles.co.il/article/183318&from_mobile=1
Answer
I skimmed it, and I disagree.
The main reason for my disagreement is that I am not gambling with a person’s life or happiness. If there were an existing person and I were placing him into a gamble, then there might perhaps be room to hesitate. But here the alternative is that this person would not exist at all. I am not harming a specific person by putting him into a gamble, since without this gamble he would not have existed. I elaborated on this in several places on the site when I discussed the argument of wrongful birth (search for it here on the site).
Beyond that, even if we ignore the previous distinction and relate to this as though I really am placing a person into a gamble, it seems to me that even here the argument is incorrect. First, most of us prefer living to dying. Very few people commit suicide. Beyond that, each person has the option of suicide if he finds himself in such an extreme situation that in his eyes it justifies that. At most, one could say that a parent should make the means of suicide available to his child if they should want it. In addition, each one of us places others into gambles with very severe possible consequences, such as driving on the road. So it is not true that there is a categorical prohibition against placing a person into a gamble.
In addition, the existence of the world and of humanity is contingent on our taking this gamble. So against the negative value there is a positive value in the existence of life in the world.
In addition, people’s happiness will also not exist if children are not born. Some of them will live in sorrow and others in happiness. Why should the former be 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 reasonable age pyramid, as can be seen now in China. There, it was permitted to have only one child, and an inverted age pyramid was created that does not allow them to sustain themselves (few young people and many elderly). No wonder they changed it too. The same is true in Europe, except that there it is due to people’s own choice.
The combination of all these arguments shows that the argument is plainly unreasonable.
The only argument that seems reasonable to me is the argument of population explosion. But that does not rule out reproduction, only reckless reproduction.
All this even without the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, of course.
Discussion on Answer
In principle, correct. The problematic part lies with whoever does that to him. But if I knew with certainty that this is what would happen to him, I would consider not bringing him into the world.
Why would you consider that? After all, you say there is no problem with the act of bringing him into the world, so on what grounds are you considering it at all?
Because even if I’m not to blame, it is still right to spare suffering (that is caused not through my fault).
So then I didn’t understand what relevance that argument has to my question. I wasn’t claiming that you are to blame, but that it is right to spare suffering = it is not right to bring children into the world.
I explained, and I’ll repeat it. If it were an injustice done by me, the perspective might perhaps be different. But it isn’t. If the suffering were certain, then perhaps there would be room for a different perspective. But it isn’t. And add to that the rest of what I said, and the commandment.
With God’s help, 12 Nisan 5782
To Yosef — greetings,
There are people who do not want children out of fear that it will interfere with their career and enjoyment of life. I am glad to read in your words that you are not headed in that direction. Your concern is about the suffering there may be in the lives of the children you would have.
A person is sent into this world in order to act within 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. Hardships temper a person, and his success in coping with those hardships is precisely what gives his life flavor and meaning.
One who lives with this consciousness is not frightened or broken by suffering and difficulty, but rather turns them into a challenge to be faced. Just as a soldier in an elite unit or a competitive athlete is not alarmed by grueling training.
It is good for everyone to have children, who also bring them contentment and joy. They give life meaning when a person invests in nurturing them, gives to them, and receives from them love and satisfaction. They will be a source of contentment and help in his old age, and they will carry on the good qualities that their parents planted in them even “after one hundred and twenty.”
Precisely you, whose disposition is to care about preventing any suffering to your fellow human being, would be a wonderful parent to your children. You would do everything you could so that they have a good life, and you would give them tools that would enable them to cope successfully with life’s challenges. Therefore, especially for you, morally speaking, it is recommended to have children and raise them.
With blessings, Hillel Feiner-Gluskinus
According to the first explanation (that there is no existing person whom you are harming), I understand that there is also no moral problem with bringing into the world a baby who will be slaughtered or thrown to die of hunger immediately after birth???