3 ms·

I'm generally quite strongly on the side of being considerate of other people for a continental European, but in the particular case of children I kind of disag

I'm generally quite strongly on the side of being considerate of other people for a continental European, but in the particular case of children I kind of disagree. Children are an annoying but absolutely necessary part of society. They will work for our pensions and care for us when we are old. They should be everyone's problem and responsibility, not just the parents.

bumby 2y ago
I think the question comes down to what is reasonable accommodation. As others have said, allowing you to bring your child to the conference seems reasonable. As does asking you to step outside when your child becomes a distraction. In the US workforce, there are laws about what constitutes a reasonable accommodation for a disability. If you have a mobility restriction, it’s reasonable to ask for a first floor office, but not that the owner install an elevator.
gspencley 2y ago
> They will work for our pensions and care for us when we are old. That sentence sent chills down my spine. Life is an end in itself. It is a not a means to the ends of others. Your children are no more my responsibility than they are my tool to serve me in old age. My pension and care in old age is not their responsibility any more than their behaviour is my obligation to put up with. If this sounds strange and overly "individualistic" then let me frame the issue in a slightly different way. If we accept that children are an "absolutely necessary part of society" because "they will work for our pensions and care for us when we are old" then what happens if people choose not to have children? Are childless (by choice) people parasites in such a society? If more and more people decide to not have children is there a point where this becomes a social crises to the point where we start forcing people to have children? And what about children who decide to emigrate as adults? Is there a point where you prevent people from travelling in order to guarantee that you have enough people around to pay pensions and take care of old people? Not that it should matter, but I write this a middle-aged parent of two adult daughters who I do not hold to any sort of moral obligation to take care of me when I'm old. If they choose to then cool, I guess, but it's their life to live as they choose. The mere fact that they exist does not automatically obligate them to anyone else for any purpose.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  >My pension and care in old age is not their responsibility any more than their behaviour is my obligation to put up with. You may think this ought not be true, but as a matter of reality it is. Each generation carries the weight of the previous one through retirement. Is it just? I think so - but regardless of that, it is the agreement every child is born into. >Are childless (by choice) people parasites in such a society? Somewhat, but it is rude to point that out.
  - gspencley 2y ago
    > You may think this ought not be true, but as a matter of reality it is. Each generation carries the weight of the previous one through retirement. To the extent that this is true, it is by choice. > Is it just? I think so - but regardless of that, it is the agreement every child is born into. "Agreement" presupposes the consent of each party. You cannot be entered into an "agreement" without your own participation in the act of agreeing. Children cannot consent, therefore this is no "agreement" by definition. What you have called an "agreement" is more appropriately referred to as a "duty." There is a very critical distinction between the two concepts which I will elaborate on in a moment. > Somewhat, but it is rude to point that out. What do manners have to do with anything? What you're describing is the concept of duty. You're saying that by virtue of just being born, a child is obligated to care for his or her elders through retirement and that their personal choices are irrelevant. In this case there is a very important question: "What are you going to do about it when the child says 'no'?" You can either do nothing, which is a valid option, but it means that the entire concept and discussion was moot. You can invent "duties" all you want, but people ultimately get to decide how to live their own lives and there's nothing you can do about it. Or, you can pass laws and use force in order to compel people to do certain things "for the good of society." Which brings me to why I asked the question: "Are people who choose to be child-free parasites?" That's a very important question because if a "society" depends on children in order to pay peoples' pensions and to take care of them when they are older, and that dependence is so fundamental that we consider people who choose not have children "parasites", and we obligate children to a duty to take care of elders ... then you've weakened the recognition of individual rights (at least reproductive rights and the right to travel / emigrate) to such an extent that you've opened the door to banning contraception, abortion and freedom of travel.

bumby 2y ago

I think the question comes down to what is reasonable accommodation. As others have said, allowing you to bring your child to the conference seems reasonable. As does asking you to step outside when your child becomes a distraction. In the US workforce, there are laws about what constitutes a reasonable accommodation for a disability. If you have a mobility restriction, it’s reasonable to ask for a first floor office, but not that the owner install an elevator.

gspencley 2y ago

> They will work for our pensions and care for us when we are old. That sentence sent chills down my spine. Life is an end in itself. It is a not a means to the ends of others. Your children are no more my responsibility than they are my tool to serve me in old age. My pension and care in old age is not their responsibility any more than their behaviour is my obligation to put up with. If this sounds strange and overly "individualistic" then let me frame the issue in a slightly different way. If we accept that children are an "absolutely necessary part of society" because "they will work for our pensions and care for us when we are old" then what happens if people choose not to have children? Are childless (by choice) people parasites in such a society? If more and more people decide to not have children is there a point where this becomes a social crises to the point where we start forcing people to have children? And what about children who decide to emigrate as adults? Is there a point where you prevent people from travelling in order to guarantee that you have enough people around to pay pensions and take care of old people? Not that it should matter, but I write this a middle-aged parent of two adult daughters who I do not hold to any sort of moral obligation to take care of me when I'm old. If they choose to then cool, I guess, but it's their life to live as they choose. The mere fact that they exist does not automatically obligate them to anyone else for any purpose.

sickofparadox 2y ago
>My pension and care in old age is not their responsibility any more than their behaviour is my obligation to put up with. You may think this ought not be true, but as a matter of reality it is. Each generation carries the weight of the previous one through retirement. Is it just? I think so - but regardless of that, it is the agreement every child is born into. >Are childless (by choice) people parasites in such a society? Somewhat, but it is rude to point that out.
- gspencley 2y ago
  > You may think this ought not be true, but as a matter of reality it is. Each generation carries the weight of the previous one through retirement. To the extent that this is true, it is by choice. > Is it just? I think so - but regardless of that, it is the agreement every child is born into. "Agreement" presupposes the consent of each party. You cannot be entered into an "agreement" without your own participation in the act of agreeing. Children cannot consent, therefore this is no "agreement" by definition. What you have called an "agreement" is more appropriately referred to as a "duty." There is a very critical distinction between the two concepts which I will elaborate on in a moment. > Somewhat, but it is rude to point that out. What do manners have to do with anything? What you're describing is the concept of duty. You're saying that by virtue of just being born, a child is obligated to care for his or her elders through retirement and that their personal choices are irrelevant. In this case there is a very important question: "What are you going to do about it when the child says 'no'?" You can either do nothing, which is a valid option, but it means that the entire concept and discussion was moot. You can invent "duties" all you want, but people ultimately get to decide how to live their own lives and there's nothing you can do about it. Or, you can pass laws and use force in order to compel people to do certain things "for the good of society." Which brings me to why I asked the question: "Are people who choose to be child-free parasites?" That's a very important question because if a "society" depends on children in order to pay peoples' pensions and to take care of them when they are older, and that dependence is so fundamental that we consider people who choose not have children "parasites", and we obligate children to a duty to take care of elders ... then you've weakened the recognition of individual rights (at least reproductive rights and the right to travel / emigrate) to such an extent that you've opened the door to banning contraception, abortion and freedom of travel.