Is the continuance of our species justifiable?
If a child is likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing the child into existence? - yes.
If a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life, is that a reason for bringing the child into existence? - yes(for pessimists – "Let's say yes"). Can we produce only happy people? - no.
How can we justify continuance of our species in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings, without accepting unlimited utilitarism? There is no way to bring happy people into existence and not to bringing atlast some unhappy people into existence.
If a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life, is that a reason for bringing the child into existence? - yes(for pessimists – "Let's say yes"). Can we produce only happy people? - no.
How can we justify continuance of our species in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings, without accepting unlimited utilitarism? There is no way to bring happy people into existence and not to bringing atlast some unhappy people into existence.
Comments (3)
Sometimes, these are live questions that you ask, that prospective parents have to agonise over, because there is a known genetic risk. Sometimes doctors have to ask if a child should be treated to prolong a life of pain, or allowed to die. You demean and trivialise these decisions by philosophising them in the abstract and trying to universalise.
Quoting Number02
Life is worth the pain and suffering. In extremis, we might sometimes decide that life is not worth the pain and suffering in a particular case. But to generalise from the extreme is invalid and odious.
Do many people have a life full of pain and suffering?
Even if someone has a physical condition that would normally cause pain, doesn't the human brain adjust so that one is not normally in pain? A constant pain stimulus is something you become numb to.