6 ms·

On the contrary, from a moral standpoint you owe your children everything. You forced them into existence without their consent. Though I agree that doesn't ha

by halgir 2y ago

On the contrary, from a moral standpoint you owe your children everything. You forced them into existence without their consent. Though I agree that doesn't have to mean conforming to societal expectations of ivy league schools and so forth. Food, love and a roof over your head goes a long way.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> from a moral standpoint you owe your children everything. You forced them into existence without their consent. I offer that the above is the first truth of parenting. After I understood it, organizing my priorities became far simpler. Parenting is service.
hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
Disagree philosophically, there was no "them" to consent prior to them existing, so no one was forced. I think this is gesturing at Benatar's antinatalist argument but as you'll recall it rests on a metaphysical asymmetry here I have just never found convincing. Appreciate you keeping the pushback civil, however.
- mckn1ght 2y ago
  True, no one is asked whether or not they would like to be born and then forced into it after disagreeing, but once they are brought into existence they will experience suffering in life, does anyone ever desire such suffering for themselves? Seems to me that parents should want to minimize that suffering, even if I also disagree with “owing them everything” as parents should also help them to grow into self-sufficient beings. It’s a tough balance to strike and I won’t pretend to be an expert on it, I’m only just getting started myself.
  - hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
    Ceteris paribus everyone wants to minimize the suffering of another. All the more when it's your own child. That's very different from having a moral obligation towards them to minimize their suffering, which is the thrust of my original post. The thing is the vast majority of people find living to be on the whole a source of great joy, far greater than any suffering they may experience as a byproduct of it. The handful who don't do have the option, grim as it may be to consider, of returning to nonexistence. The fact that this option isn't taken by even 1% of people suggests strongly that nonexistence just isn't that compelling an alternative.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > Disagree philosophically, there was no "them" to consent prior to them existing, so no one was forced. The point is that the obligation flows one way because one party was inserted into it without their consent. Does their lack of preexistence impact that equation in a meaningful way?
  - hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
    >Does their lack of preexistence impact that equation in a meaningful way? Yes. Obviously.
  - Ray20 2y ago
    > The point is that the obligation flows one way because one party was inserted into it without their consent. Well, philosophically it's not a big problem, because dissatisfied can very easily stop participating.
vlovich123 2y ago
It's interesting to compare this perspective with religious teachings which tend to say that kids owe everything to their parents ("honor") and that parents responsibility is to train their kids with good moral character (on top of food, love & shelter). As a parent you want to give them everything but you then have to balance that against realities & other priorities. That's part of the training of a good moral character: learning to manage life's limitations & your response to those limitations.
layer8 2y ago
If every generation is expected to sacrifice themselves for the next, it kind of begs the question of what is the point of it all. Having some reciprocal balance makes more sense to me. One can also turn around your moral argument: Your children owe you everything, since they wouldn’t exist at all without you.
imetatroll 2y ago
I cannot put my finger on why I dislike this comment so deeply but I am a parent and I suspect you are not. To be specific I dislike your framing and use of the word "forced". I do agree though that parents should deeply love and support their kids which is what it sounds like you are trying to say. And in turn, your kids should do the same despite "generational differences".
- p_j_w 2y ago
  >To be specific I dislike your framing and use of the word "forced". Why?
  - trillic 2y ago
    Because it directly contradicts their world view where child-rearing and the success of said child’s genetics is the highest purpose one can pursue.
- halgir 2y ago
  > I cannot put my finger on why I dislike this comment so deeply but I am a parent and I suspect you are not. I am also a parent. > I do agree though that parents should deeply love and support their kids which is what it sounds like you are trying to say. Loving your kids is not a moral obligation, though most do (for the record, I love mine very much). Supporting your kids is a moral obligation, whether you love them or not, incurred by creating them. > And in turn, your kids should do the same despite "generational differences". I disagree. Our kids will never be morally obligated towards us in any way. We can only hope to have loved and supported them enough for them to love and support us back of their own volition.
  - vacuity 2y ago
    > I disagree. Our kids will never be morally obligated towards us in any way. We can only hope to have loved and supported them enough for them to love and support us back of their own volition. I agree with this. Kids can't willingly bring themselves into the world (although "forced" is an exaggeration), and the burden is on their parents. A kid, until a certain point, is a person with certain needs and restrictions that call for external supervision (e.g. needing shelter, not voting). I consider a person in general to not have inherent obligations beyond not killing and whatnot. Sure, I can ditch my friend in a socially awkward moment and that would make me a huge jerk, but surely it doesn't rise to the same level as hitting someone. > Loving your kids is not a moral obligation, though most do (for the record, I love mine very much). Supporting your kids is a moral obligation, whether you love them or not, incurred by creating them. I don't quite know what you mean by "loving" versus "supporting". To me, supporting sounds like loving, with the caveat that I think emotional care ties into supporting a kid. Do you mean extra things like buying more presents on holidays?

by halgir 2y ago

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

> from a moral standpoint you owe your children everything. You forced them into existence without their consent. I offer that the above is the first truth of parenting. After I understood it, organizing my priorities became far simpler. Parenting is service.

hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago

Disagree philosophically, there was no "them" to consent prior to them existing, so no one was forced. I think this is gesturing at Benatar's antinatalist argument but as you'll recall it rests on a metaphysical asymmetry here I have just never found convincing. Appreciate you keeping the pushback civil, however.

mckn1ght 2y ago
True, no one is asked whether or not they would like to be born and then forced into it after disagreeing, but once they are brought into existence they will experience suffering in life, does anyone ever desire such suffering for themselves? Seems to me that parents should want to minimize that suffering, even if I also disagree with “owing them everything” as parents should also help them to grow into self-sufficient beings. It’s a tough balance to strike and I won’t pretend to be an expert on it, I’m only just getting started myself.
- hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
  Ceteris paribus everyone wants to minimize the suffering of another. All the more when it's your own child. That's very different from having a moral obligation towards them to minimize their suffering, which is the thrust of my original post. The thing is the vast majority of people find living to be on the whole a source of great joy, far greater than any suffering they may experience as a byproduct of it. The handful who don't do have the option, grim as it may be to consider, of returning to nonexistence. The fact that this option isn't taken by even 1% of people suggests strongly that nonexistence just isn't that compelling an alternative.
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> Disagree philosophically, there was no "them" to consent prior to them existing, so no one was forced. The point is that the obligation flows one way because one party was inserted into it without their consent. Does their lack of preexistence impact that equation in a meaningful way?
- hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
  >Does their lack of preexistence impact that equation in a meaningful way? Yes. Obviously.
- Ray20 2y ago
  > The point is that the obligation flows one way because one party was inserted into it without their consent. Well, philosophically it's not a big problem, because dissatisfied can very easily stop participating.

vlovich123 2y ago

It's interesting to compare this perspective with religious teachings which tend to say that kids owe everything to their parents ("honor") and that parents responsibility is to train their kids with good moral character (on top of food, love & shelter). As a parent you want to give them everything but you then have to balance that against realities & other priorities. That's part of the training of a good moral character: learning to manage life's limitations & your response to those limitations.

layer8 2y ago

If every generation is expected to sacrifice themselves for the next, it kind of begs the question of what is the point of it all. Having some reciprocal balance makes more sense to me. One can also turn around your moral argument: Your children owe you everything, since they wouldn’t exist at all without you.

imetatroll 2y ago

I cannot put my finger on why I dislike this comment so deeply but I am a parent and I suspect you are not. To be specific I dislike your framing and use of the word "forced". I do agree though that parents should deeply love and support their kids which is what it sounds like you are trying to say. And in turn, your kids should do the same despite "generational differences".

p_j_w 2y ago
>To be specific I dislike your framing and use of the word "forced". Why?
- trillic 2y ago
  Because it directly contradicts their world view where child-rearing and the success of said child’s genetics is the highest purpose one can pursue.
halgir 2y ago
> I cannot put my finger on why I dislike this comment so deeply but I am a parent and I suspect you are not. I am also a parent. > I do agree though that parents should deeply love and support their kids which is what it sounds like you are trying to say. Loving your kids is not a moral obligation, though most do (for the record, I love mine very much). Supporting your kids is a moral obligation, whether you love them or not, incurred by creating them. > And in turn, your kids should do the same despite "generational differences". I disagree. Our kids will never be morally obligated towards us in any way. We can only hope to have loved and supported them enough for them to love and support us back of their own volition.
- vacuity 2y ago
  > I disagree. Our kids will never be morally obligated towards us in any way. We can only hope to have loved and supported them enough for them to love and support us back of their own volition. I agree with this. Kids can't willingly bring themselves into the world (although "forced" is an exaggeration), and the burden is on their parents. A kid, until a certain point, is a person with certain needs and restrictions that call for external supervision (e.g. needing shelter, not voting). I consider a person in general to not have inherent obligations beyond not killing and whatnot. Sure, I can ditch my friend in a socially awkward moment and that would make me a huge jerk, but surely it doesn't rise to the same level as hitting someone. > Loving your kids is not a moral obligation, though most do (for the record, I love mine very much). Supporting your kids is a moral obligation, whether you love them or not, incurred by creating them. I don't quite know what you mean by "loving" versus "supporting". To me, supporting sounds like loving, with the caveat that I think emotional care ties into supporting a kid. Do you mean extra things like buying more presents on holidays?