Do we have a Moral Duty to have children?

[Duke_of_BOOM!]

I thought it was a good question, so I will pass it along.

[Dom]

I don't think we need to worry about extinction through under-population just yet.

In an ideal world, I'd say it was a moral duty not to have kids unless you can provide for them. I know that I'll want kids someday, but I would need to be sure that they'd be taken care of.

My parents would probably have liked three kids, but they knew that they couldn't afford to have more than two, hence my brother and I.

[StePalminall]

Well, I don't reckon there's such thing as a "moral duty" anymore, or if there is one, it's become a rarer creature. Many people will agree on a lesser number of moral rights and wrongs, but since society is becoming more individualist, we've developed our own sets of moral values, and feel that questioning the moral values of another isn't vaild, aapart from extreme cases. I know I use this as an explanation for everything in here, but dissolution of grand narravites, in particular religion, has led to this, in my opinion. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I'm undecided.

[moussaka_thief]

There are far too many of us anyhow. The population is immense and the rate of growth is unsustainable. If the traditional european community declines, something else will replace it. People are people, meh. I'm not particularly bothered if it changes, humanity is unlikely to stop reproducing loads any time soon.

[Berserk Sushi]

I don't see the dissipation of the community through benevolent private choices to be a bad thing. It certainly doesn't directly harm the community or any of its members anyway.

So- "No."

[Spunj Monkey]

Yes. If you don't, someone else will, and they're unlikely to do such a good job of raising them as you. It's your only chance to ensure the next generation are halfway decent.

[StePalminall]

I wouldn't say "the community" is dissapiating. True, in the area of moral sense, it has less input, but, in this country at least, the community is playing it's part in other areas with more strength than in the past. In particular, I'd say the areas of crime prevention and resolution ensure the community hasn't been lost in the recent wave of government centralisation policies, and in fact, the most recent acts connected to law and order have started to decentralized operations and delegated them to community operations.

[Gogo Jojo]

I'd be far more worried about a civilization becoming lost due to illegal immigration and the like, rather then from a lack of kids.

Although if the question were "Do we have a Moral Duty to have children and raise them well," the answer might be more interesting. After all -- hundreds and thousands of children are being born each day. It seems a fair amount are born into less-than-ideal circumstances, i.e. broken homes, third-world countries, abusive/alcoholic/drug-addicted parents and the like.

Would it truly strengthen society to eliminate these unfortunate circumstances? Or are situations like this a necessary evil, which in turn teach children values they wouldn't otherwise learn?

Hmmm...

[Duke_of_BOOM!]

[Duke_of_BOOM!]

[Berserk Sushi]

Precisely. That, and the actual distinction of what the boundaries of the community are, is arbitrary. A neighborhood? A city? Country? Continent? Ethnic group?

[Duke_of_BOOM!]

It really is quite drastic. Take Japan for example, they have a birth rate of 1.7 per couple. Zero population growth requires a birth rate of about 2.2 children per couple. This translates to a 25% drop in population in a generation if the trends hold steady.

It really is not that apparent in Japan, as they do not have that much in the way of immigration, but the social dynamics of countries like France that do have a high immigrant population will change, along with norms and values.

This is why I think Europe is starting to push anti-immigrant legislation.

[Hof]

No.

[Berserk Sushi]

[carrie680]

[nukelavee]

no, i don't think we have a duty to have children.

here's the thing - morals are, for any given community, a consensus of behaviour for that community...the norm, if you will.

if the norm for a community (village, town, state, country....whatever) is not to breed... there you go. ie, if any given community is shrinking, then the consensus of behaviour is not to breed, and the shrinking of the population is evidence that the population is ok with shrinking.

on the other hand... from a judeo-christian/islamic point of view, god said to breed.

so - BREED! unless you are a single mother, in which case you will burn in hell forever, along with baby eaters and whore-mongers. of course, aborting will send you to hell, too, and you already had carnal relations, so the best bet is to sew your vagina shut until marriage.

[R]

Children don't serve as large a purpose for society any more anyways, since they no longer are needed to work the family land, provide for the elderly and gotta have lots of them since most will die before adulthood. All industrialized societies are seeing a drop in population since people aren't having 2.1 kids any more. Emigration from sub-industrial nations offsets that though, since they're still popping out kids for the same reasons industrial nations used to do so.

[Duke_of_BOOM!]