After the previous post you would think that I would enjoy Peter Singer’s dire analysis
of the value of a new sentient being in this topsy-turvey world of ours. Here’s the link!
Singer asks at the end of his essay: What do you think?
Readers are invited to respond to the following questions in the comment section below:
If a child is likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing the child into existence?
To begin with, it seems to me impossible for any parent, unless they are confirmed pessimists, or optimists, to have a clear idea of the life their new child can have. It’s a throw of dice at best!
If a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life, is that a reason for bringing the child into existence?
I’m tempted to say that this is enough of a reason to give birth to a new sentient being. My wife hopes for a blue eyed baby boy to occupy her time fully. What to make of that wish, or reason to have a child?
Is life worth living, for most people in developed nations today?
Once again I am loath to say NO such a life is not worth living. For me there are really only moments of sheer joy which I celebrate with all the abandon of a 74+year old. It’s great when it’s happening and it makes a lot of shit go away!
Is a world with people in it better than a world with no sentient beings at all?
A world without sentient beings is not in any conventional sense a world. We are part and parcel of this world, sentient or not!
Would it be wrong for us all to agree not to have children, so that we would be the last generation on Earth?
Only another sentient being like Peter Singer could propose such an eventuality. Agreeing to become the last generation on Earth is a devil’s bargain! And I don’t believe in God or the devil, whatever that is!
Related articles by Zemanta
- Should This Be the Last Generation? (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Peter Singer: Would You Save the Life of a Child? (alternet.org)
- How far are you willing to believe? (pastorpaulvbsblog.blogspot.com)