Philosophical Vegan Forum

I have long held to the opinion that procreation is immoral. I support this position because I consider exposing sentient beings to potential suffering to be morally wrong on all grounds. I have always considered adoption to be a much more morally sound option. What do you think of this?

I don't think it's moral or immoral. It's just a evolutionary function.
You can make a claim that it may be immoral because of the pain of child birth and the potential suffering of the offspring at some point in their lives, but the majority of people on earth would rather be here than not be born in the first place.

It's very subjective I guess, hence, your poll.

Adoption is good, but also involves child birth. However that adoptable child exists, whereas I have not yet had a baby, so as far as population control goes, It would be preferable, except for the initial costs. ridiculously expensive.

Depends on who you are. If you are an intelligent, reasonably wealthy person, I think getting a child is completely okay. Sure, that child is going to suffer, but chances are it's going to live a reasonably healthy life given the fact hat he raised by someone wealthy and intelligent.

miniboes wrote:Depends on who you are. If you are an intelligent, reasonably wealthy person, I think getting a child is completely okay. Sure, that child is going to suffer, but chances are it's going to live a reasonably healthy life given the fact hat he raised by someone wealthy and intelligent.

There are many social injustices that result in inequity in wealth distribution, so saying that it's only/more morally acceptable for the wealthy could be interpreted as classist. freelee had said something similar and privileged vegan's response is worth looking in to in this context: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nulTqmHH7eg

Other metrics could also include amount of suffering caused by the progeny including amount of resource consumption, pollution, amount of non biodegradable/non recyclables used.

IMO when population growth is stabilised and resource consumption becomes sustainable it shouldn't be immoral. Negative population growth can affect countries economies.

Also since a wealthy person is more likely to be a meat eater while most poor seldom eat meat (with some exceptions like the food deserts in first world countries like America) if you look at the overall resource consumption and suffering caused would the wealthy regular meat consuming first worlder consume more resources and animals than even multiple poor mostly-vegetarians?
From cowapiracy https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWJa--XL274

knowledge is power wrote:It's just a evolutionary function

Isn't this natural fallacy? Couldn't one also state that war and paranoia are evolutionary functions and be correct? Are these practices therefore not detestable?

garrethdsouza wrote: There are many social injustices that result in inequity in wealth distribution, so saying that it's only/more morally acceptable for the wealthy could be interpreted as classist. freelee had said something similar and privileged vegan's response is worth looking in to in this context: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nulTqmHH7eg

From an environmental and political perspective, she is completely correct. However, lower class citizens' and their children suffer from both lack of wealth, educational opportunity, and upward mobility. To forcefully expose children to unnecessary suffering still seems immoral to me. Ideally, social reform would occur and allow for sustainable and comfortable living for all working people and offer educational opportunities to their children. However, this would likely be a long term goal for our society, and in the short term, avoiding child birth seems like a good alternative.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:I have long held to the opinion that procreation is immoral. I support this position because I consider exposing sentient beings to potential suffering to be morally wrong on all grounds. I have always considered adoption to be a much more morally sound option. What do you think of this?

Objective mode activated.

I think this is absurd. Yes, beings are capable of suffering but they are also capable of joy. I am very, very happy that my parents gave birth to me.

Do you regret that you were born?

If so, then you likely suffer from depression which is a mental illness and is a sign that your brain is unhealthy. If you have a healthy brain then you will (for the most part) enjoy life.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:

garrethdsouza wrote: There are many social injustices that result in inequity in wealth distribution, so saying that it's only/more morally acceptable for the wealthy could be interpreted as classist. freelee had said something similar and privileged vegan's response is worth looking in to in this context: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nulTqmHH7eg

From an environmental and political perspective, she is completely correct. However, lower class citizens' and their children suffer from both lack of wealth, educational opportunity, and upward mobility. To forcefully expose children to unnecessary suffering still seems immoral to me. Ideally, social reform would occur and allow for sustainable and comfortable living for all working people and offer educational opportunities to their children. However, this would likely be a long term goal for our society, and in the short term, avoiding child birth seems like a good alternative.

If you live in horrible circumstances then it is probably best to avoid procreation. Anyone who is on this forum is obviously not impoverished so in that case having a child is a good thing.