I decided not to repeat myself in Anti-natalism where this came up, but thought I could address this idea more fully in its own thread. I think there are a number of confusions in this idea and they also relevent to the more general ‘Everything we do is selfish’ argument, at least some of its forms.
I think this overmentalizes and rationalizes a natural process. Some is attracted someone else. They end up having sex. The female gets pregnant. She,perhaps they, go on to have a baby. The fact that she did not have an abortion is to me not a selfish act. (note this is not a judgment of abortions. I am not basing my objection on some negative aspect of abortions. I am simply noting that a natural set of processes were engaged in and sometimes not aborting is what leads to a child being born.) It could have all been selfish, only, I suppose. The woman could have pretended to use birth control, could have sat with her legs up in the bathroom for 6 hours after copulating. She could be thinking the whole time she was out trolling for men about the baby she wants for herself, goody, goody. She could never once have considered that she is incompetent socially and likely a bad parent, etc. I suppose.
But we certainly could simply have someone living out their natural way of life which leads to babies in many cases. There need never be some discrete decision moment ‘Oh, yes give me that baby even though life is suffering or I am too dumb to notice how bad things are’ moment.
The act that led to the baby being born could also have been hard to simply judge as selfish. It might have included all sorts of tenderness and wishing to give pleasure to a great person one has met. We are social animals and we do things for others also automatically. This may benefit us or it may benefit the group - or genes if you want to be crass - but as if the motivations all come back to the self as opposed to others seems confused to me and not slightly.
This natural not only selfish, not only altruistic sexual act being part of a whole similar process that is neither one nor the other and certainly not either one alone.
That last paragraph is touching on my second objection which is that while it is nearly impossible to prove that an act is not selfish, since people can reinterpret any act and attribute this sole motivation selfishness to it, it simply does not fit my experience. People identify with others. People care about others, people feel drawn to experiences for motivations well beyond their own sense of self- benefit.
Sometimes country leaders have told their citizens to have babies. Some people have done it for the good of the nation. Silliest thing I’ve every heard of, but, it wasn’t about the self. Unless you want to get into the kinds of gymnastics where everything is about selfish acts. You wanted to feel like you were a good citizen so you…etc.
If only people were actually more selfish. They would do so many terrible things for other people.
The common false dichotomy is that of Self-ISH vs Self-LESS.
Selfish implies total self concern, void of any concern for others at all.
Selfless implies total concern for others, void of any concern for oneself.
Rational life (and any life that has actually succeeded) is neither selfish nor selfless, but a more proper balance of the two.
What I see as the exact proper life, the most successful and meaningful is “Inclusive Self-Harmony” wherein the self is sought to be satisfied as well as the immediate surroundings (ie “others”). As long as that state can be maintained, that life can never perish.
Having a child (a “kid” is a baby goat) is merely one of the means natural toward accomplishing inclusive self-harmony. It is a natural extension of the attempt to surround oneself with something compatible with oneself, whether successful or not. It is the very essence of the dividing DNA and cell, merely extended to an entire body.
Both selfish and selfless are merely different forms of insanity, regardless of any “reasons” given.
I guess my arguments are sparking conversation. Always nice to see.
Suffice to say, that is not how it usually happens in the western portion of the world. We live in the age of condoms, morning after pills and vasectomies.
In the more civilized societies, people tend to decided when they want to have kids. The majority at least. You make it sound like an accident.
This can be said about virtually everything.
John killed Paul. A natural set of processes were engaged.
It’s a meaningless statement.
By using the word “natural” in this context you’re implying that not only is having kids common but also a righteous act.
Giving pleasure to a person by having their kid sounds pretty selfish to me.
Wanting to have a kid so that the person has someone to love, that will love back also sounds very selfish, even if it produces a happy mother and a happy child.
Definition of selfish (dictionary.reference.com)
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
Name one experience people feel drawn to that has no perceived benefit.
The “all acts are chosen by the actor therefore all acts are selfish” line is a regular canard, and makes regular appearances in tepid discussions. What it’s effectively doing is redefining selfish away from what is usually meant by the word… but fair enough, it can be accepted in its new context. Since every choice is a selfish one, “selfish” itself has no normative value anymore, and then it’s no argument against anything to say “but that’s a selfish choice”.
On the topic of your OP, you can’t argue that every choice is selfish and then say “having children is selfish therefore you oughtn’t do it”, as it’s just as selfish to eat, share your food with the hungry, drive while sober or take contraceptives.
Is creating a child selfish, thoughtless, thinking only of oneself or not thinking at all. In a lot of cases, unfortunately, it can be both, which is why there are so many ways to achieve mutual pleasure without creating a child. Creating a child is a co-operative effort, after all. Does that mean it’s also mutual selfishness?
Maybe selfishness isn’t the correct word when it comes to creating a child, although it may be the correct word for wanting to create a child. Actually, I don’t think most people–male or female–even think about it. You see, creating a child is really very difficult. If there’s any miracle involved, it’s more the miracle of conception. Everything has to be exactly ‘right’–physically, medically-- in order to conceive a child–and everything has to be ‘right’ in order to bring the little mass of cells to term as a baby. If you don’t believe me, study up on it.
If the discussion is to be about ‘selfishness’ in general, answer me this: Is the Golden Rule selfish? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Should it be interpreted as “Do unto others as you would hope–wish–them to do unto you?” This implies reciprocity, doesn’t it? Is the expectation of reciprocity selfish?
I have a problem (among many others) trying to understand the ‘selfish’ word because of it pejorative connotations. Self-interest is a bit softer. Rand’s ‘enlightened self-interest’ seems to take it back to ‘selfish.’ Anyway, is selfishness, self-interest, enlightened self-interest, rational self-interest, how ever you want to slice it, something to be maligned? Isn’t it something, instead, that has resulted in growth of both the human individual and the species?
Sorry to burst to your bubble, but it’s a physical process like any other.
The following Bill Hicks quote comes to mind:
Here’s another idea that should be punctured, the idea that childbirth is a miracle. I don’t know who started this rumor but it’s not a miracle. No more a miracle than eating food and a turd coming out of your butt. It’s a chemical reaction and a biological reaction. You want to know a miracle? A miracle is raising a kid that doesn’t talk in a fucking movie theater … I’ll go you one further, and
this is the routine that has virtually ended my career in America. If you have children here tonight—and I assume some of you do—I am sorry to tell you this. They are not special. I’ll let that sink in. Don’t get me wrong, folks. I know you think they’re special. You think that. I’m telling you—they’re not. Did you know that every time a guy comes, he comes 200 million sperm? Did you know that? And you mean to tell me you think your child is special? Because one out of 200 million sperm connected … that load? Gee, what are the fucking odds? Do you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a grey gym sock. That is special. Entire nations have flaked and crusted in the hair around my navel. That is special. And I want you to think about that, you two-egg-carrying beings out there with that holier-than-thou, we-have-the-gift-of-life attitude. I have tossed universes, in my underpants, while napping. That is special.
Hi,
I don’t have much time to go through the thread tonight, but I realized one thing I said that could be taken as an ad hom in the OP and that was not how I intended it.
When I said that ‘this’ - meaning the argument that giving birth to a child - ‘overmentalizes’ I did not mean that proponents of that idea think too much or the like. What I meant was the it includes an unstated model of giving birth as if it must follow some mental, verbal, discrete process where a person weighs pros and cons or the like and decides to go for what they want even if it might not be good for other people. I don’t think ending up having a child ever has to have a discrete mental process like this and in fact often simply follows a natural flow of actions that a mental process might stop.
Having said that I realize that people who see it as a selfish choice might also be imagining quite the opposite also where one selfishly follows ones desires without caring about the consequences. I don’t think it makes sense to judge animals - even ones with big cortexes - as being selfish when they do what they are made to do.
I think it’s good to judge almost everything. It makes sense, too. An objective real value process wouldn’t have a problem with being applied to natural things.
I said, vol, " If there’s any miracle involved, it’s more the miracle of conception." Bill Hicks’s rather crudely worded quote has nothing to do with either conception or selfishness.
Moreno
I’m assuming this is in response to my post:
I’m not sure I understand you. Weren’t we talking about whether or not having a child is selfish? Didn’t I at least imply that the reasons for sexual intercourse is most often the selfish part of conceiving a child and, in actuality, most people don’t even think about it?
Unless, of course, conception is a collaborative, cooperative goal. Then the goal of conception can be viewed as possibly selfish. Why do people want children?
The goal of creating a child can be viewed, however, as a basis for life–doing what’s ‘natural’–what we’re meant to do.
Having children can also be the most concrete way of showing the melding of two persons into one as happens with sexual intercourse–“…making two beasts with one back…” as Iago says, rather crudely. A child is the result of two individuals becoming one in order to create a third individual.
And yet, in other areas of life, you presumably demand that people think, rationally and critically, before taking action. Like say in politics.
That is hypocrisy. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
This is funny. You accused me of using words like murder and obliterate just because they are emotionally charged. And yet here, you “reduce” people to animals with big brains. Don’t get me wrong, that is exactly what we are but you’re trying to diminish our capacity to think and reason just so that you can make your point.
