This post assumes that the parents who have kids they can’t care for do so wilfully. The rates of unmet need for contraception are very high in sub-Saharan Africa - that’s why family planning is a cause area within effective altruism. Unmet need stems from a range of issues like literal lack of availability of contraceptives in local health clinics (Access to Medicines Initiative works on this), misinformation about the efficacy and side effects of family planning (Family Empowerment Media works on this) and women’s use of contraceptives often being controlled by men (Lafiya addresses this, in part, as well as lack of availability). Before lambasting people for having kids when you think they shouldn’t, let’s make sure they have a choice because ought implies can
I think this is also naive. In any contexts where interventions like malaria nets are needed, women don't have full autonomy over whether they have sex or use birth control. The decision is often made by husbands. So your "just don't have sex" would need to be aimed at them.
Even then, I find this totally uncompelling as an argument that we shouldn't help kids born to parents who chose to have them but can't care for them. Firstly, it's not the kid's fault and that's who you're punishing by choosing not to bail out 'irresponsible parents'. Secondly, would you say that we shouldn't help kids of teens in the US who had unprotected sex, because that's their fault for being irresponsible?
You focus on whether we have obligations/duties to help these kids. Who cares? What's clear is that it would be good to help them (as it would to save the drowning child). EAs aren't simply doing what they see as their obligation. Many, if not all, just want to do a lot of good, whether they are obliged to or not. It doesn't matter how irresponsible the parent is -- reducing the suffering of their child is good (unless there are second order consequences that makes things bad at net, of course)
I don't think it's naïve. You can just say no to sex. If they're raped that's a different story. Indeed: If rape is so prevalent in Africa perhaps a scheme to castrate all of the rapists would be advisable.
I agree it's not the kid's fault at all. I for one would not help teenage mothers with children since they should be able to help themselves and their children in the US. Accepting a moderate deontologist effective altruism, though, I would be obligated to loan money to the parent's of a malaria ridden child, thus saving it, but I could rightfully demand repayment of the loan. It's not my fault they've negligently decided to have a child after all.
In regards to your third point: I care. EAs ultimately don't think giving to charity in the vast majority of cases is supererogatory, while I have shown that in many cases it is. Sure, reducing the suffering of the child is good for it, but the proper concern of man in his moral conduct with others is respecting the right not promoting the good.
Sex is one of the most basic human instincts, for extremely obvious reasons. Telling people not to do it is a bit like telling them not to eat or sleep. It's how the human race propagates itself.
A better solution would be vasectomies. Free vasectomies for anyone who wants one. That way those who cannot afford children won't have them.
One thing which hasn’t been noted yet about this stance is that it’s diametrically opposed to Christianity… to the point of being anti-Christian.
In Christian terms, the author is rhetorically asking “is that child really my neighbour” and answering no. The Christian answer is precisely the opposite.
That doesn’t disprove the argument of course, nor will it convince anyone who isn’t a Christian.
But any Christian giving this any credence whatsoever doesn’t know their own beliefs and needs to return to first principles.
I don’t agree with Peter Singh, but this is such a first world problems essay. High child mortality is the norm in nature. We’re just privileged enough to avoid it.
Just because my child might get malaria and die, doesn’t mean I won’t have him in the first place. If everyone did that we’s go extinct. I would have children even if child mortality was over 50%. Nature is cruel. That doesn’t mean we should be anti-natalist.
It's usually better to be a child born to negligent parents than not to be born at all--even if premature death is the eventual result. I don't see how even a parent has more than a moral obligation to ensure, as far as is possible, that their child's life is better than not being born. No one else has a moral responsibility other than not to initiate harm to that child. To be forced to go beyond such minimal libertarian duties is likely to make the world a worse place overall. Charity is always allowable, but it can become an imprudent indulgence.
Could you expand on this: 'It's usually better to be a child born to negligent parents than not to be born at all--even if premature death is the eventual result. I don't see how even a parent has more than a moral obligation to ensure, as far as is possible, that their child's life is better than not being born.'
Do you mean that parents do have an obligation to ensure the life of their children is only just better than not being born, or, does an obligation exist for parents to ensure the childhood is minimal decent? Or, are you saying parents have no parental duties?
I am happy to expand on my first very approximate response. Parents incur a duty to do their best to care for and guide their children such that their lives as children are, at the absolute minimum, 1) overall worth living, and 2) free of abuse (i.e., what most people would usually regard as clearly inflicting unacceptable physical or psychological treatment, including by culpable neglect). I would regard that as minimally decent. If, instead, the parents are an overall cost or abusive, then that culpably flouts the liberty of the children (by causing them to exist only to be put in that bad situation).
That said, the parents can discharge their duties by giving their children to responsible guardians who are willing to take over. And merely being the biological father of children (e.g., by sperm donation or casual consensual sexual encounters) does not give the man either rights or duties with respect to them. For both of those a marriage contract is usually required. Nor does the woman have such rights and duties if she has contracted them away (e.g., by giving the child to guardians or being a surrogate).
Thank you. There are similarities. However, I suspect that some duty to assist in emergency situations would be a known part of the implied contract upon entering most private-property areas (and there would be no state/goverment-property areas in a libertarian anarchy).
No civilization has ever existed without relying on the fruits of slavery, and yet we still strive to end slavery. Just because something may have historical necessity does not mean it should be applauded or is required for a better future.
This post assumes that the parents who have kids they can’t care for do so wilfully. The rates of unmet need for contraception are very high in sub-Saharan Africa - that’s why family planning is a cause area within effective altruism. Unmet need stems from a range of issues like literal lack of availability of contraceptives in local health clinics (Access to Medicines Initiative works on this), misinformation about the efficacy and side effects of family planning (Family Empowerment Media works on this) and women’s use of contraceptives often being controlled by men (Lafiya addresses this, in part, as well as lack of availability). Before lambasting people for having kids when you think they shouldn’t, let’s make sure they have a choice because ought implies can
Just don't have sex. It's as simple as that.
I think this is also naive. In any contexts where interventions like malaria nets are needed, women don't have full autonomy over whether they have sex or use birth control. The decision is often made by husbands. So your "just don't have sex" would need to be aimed at them.
Even then, I find this totally uncompelling as an argument that we shouldn't help kids born to parents who chose to have them but can't care for them. Firstly, it's not the kid's fault and that's who you're punishing by choosing not to bail out 'irresponsible parents'. Secondly, would you say that we shouldn't help kids of teens in the US who had unprotected sex, because that's their fault for being irresponsible?
You focus on whether we have obligations/duties to help these kids. Who cares? What's clear is that it would be good to help them (as it would to save the drowning child). EAs aren't simply doing what they see as their obligation. Many, if not all, just want to do a lot of good, whether they are obliged to or not. It doesn't matter how irresponsible the parent is -- reducing the suffering of their child is good (unless there are second order consequences that makes things bad at net, of course)
I don't think it's naïve. You can just say no to sex. If they're raped that's a different story. Indeed: If rape is so prevalent in Africa perhaps a scheme to castrate all of the rapists would be advisable.
I agree it's not the kid's fault at all. I for one would not help teenage mothers with children since they should be able to help themselves and their children in the US. Accepting a moderate deontologist effective altruism, though, I would be obligated to loan money to the parent's of a malaria ridden child, thus saving it, but I could rightfully demand repayment of the loan. It's not my fault they've negligently decided to have a child after all.
In regards to your third point: I care. EAs ultimately don't think giving to charity in the vast majority of cases is supererogatory, while I have shown that in many cases it is. Sure, reducing the suffering of the child is good for it, but the proper concern of man in his moral conduct with others is respecting the right not promoting the good.
Many African women don’t have the autonomy to reject men’s advances especially their husbands. It is probably naive.
Sex is one of the most basic human instincts, for extremely obvious reasons. Telling people not to do it is a bit like telling them not to eat or sleep. It's how the human race propagates itself.
A better solution would be vasectomies. Free vasectomies for anyone who wants one. That way those who cannot afford children won't have them.
I've managed pretty well over the years.
That's fine for you at an individual level, but you may be the exception here
One thing which hasn’t been noted yet about this stance is that it’s diametrically opposed to Christianity… to the point of being anti-Christian.
In Christian terms, the author is rhetorically asking “is that child really my neighbour” and answering no. The Christian answer is precisely the opposite.
That doesn’t disprove the argument of course, nor will it convince anyone who isn’t a Christian.
But any Christian giving this any credence whatsoever doesn’t know their own beliefs and needs to return to first principles.
I don’t agree with Peter Singh, but this is such a first world problems essay. High child mortality is the norm in nature. We’re just privileged enough to avoid it.
Just because my child might get malaria and die, doesn’t mean I won’t have him in the first place. If everyone did that we’s go extinct. I would have children even if child mortality was over 50%. Nature is cruel. That doesn’t mean we should be anti-natalist.
It's usually better to be a child born to negligent parents than not to be born at all--even if premature death is the eventual result. I don't see how even a parent has more than a moral obligation to ensure, as far as is possible, that their child's life is better than not being born. No one else has a moral responsibility other than not to initiate harm to that child. To be forced to go beyond such minimal libertarian duties is likely to make the world a worse place overall. Charity is always allowable, but it can become an imprudent indulgence.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/peter-singers-famine-affluence-and
https://jclester.substack.com/p/charity-and-libertarianism
Could you expand on this: 'It's usually better to be a child born to negligent parents than not to be born at all--even if premature death is the eventual result. I don't see how even a parent has more than a moral obligation to ensure, as far as is possible, that their child's life is better than not being born.'
Do you mean that parents do have an obligation to ensure the life of their children is only just better than not being born, or, does an obligation exist for parents to ensure the childhood is minimal decent? Or, are you saying parents have no parental duties?
I am happy to expand on my first very approximate response. Parents incur a duty to do their best to care for and guide their children such that their lives as children are, at the absolute minimum, 1) overall worth living, and 2) free of abuse (i.e., what most people would usually regard as clearly inflicting unacceptable physical or psychological treatment, including by culpable neglect). I would regard that as minimally decent. If, instead, the parents are an overall cost or abusive, then that culpably flouts the liberty of the children (by causing them to exist only to be put in that bad situation).
That said, the parents can discharge their duties by giving their children to responsible guardians who are willing to take over. And merely being the biological father of children (e.g., by sperm donation or casual consensual sexual encounters) does not give the man either rights or duties with respect to them. For both of those a marriage contract is usually required. Nor does the woman have such rights and duties if she has contracted them away (e.g., by giving the child to guardians or being a surrogate).
I'll have a read of these. Thank you.
You are very welcome.
Your first reply is pretty much mine: https://themusingindividualist.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/77184381?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts
Thank you, but that link comes up with "linked to a private page".
https://themusingindividualist.substack.com/p/tentative-thoughts-on-reciprocity
Thank you. There are similarities. However, I suspect that some duty to assist in emergency situations would be a known part of the implied contract upon entering most private-property areas (and there would be no state/goverment-property areas in a libertarian anarchy).
It’s unfortunate that went with the edgy and dumb “taxation=theft” statement.
No civilization has ever existed without taxation because civilization is impossible in the real world with real people.
Taxation is not theft. It’s the other half of the deal for civilization.
No civilization has ever existed without relying on the fruits of slavery, and yet we still strive to end slavery. Just because something may have historical necessity does not mean it should be applauded or is required for a better future.