Is having children a moral duty? - Moral Maze

[poppymango]

Not an AIBU but I don’t quite know where else to put it - I just listened to this on BBC Sounds and I found it fascinating and at times a little infuriating. I thought it would make for a good discussion/debate!

“Is having children a moral duty?”

Featuring Ash Sarkar, Sarah Ditum, Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui, James Orr, Caroline Farrow, Prof Anna Rotrich, and Prof Lisa Schipper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002db9t?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Absolutely fascinated to hear the opinions of other mumsnetters.

I’d love to know the sex split on the panel of yes va no.

its easier to see it as a duty when you have none of the biological risks, almost no practical costs, can phone in parenting and get to pass on those genes. Not the same the other way around.

Any chat about the moral duty to not be a shitty husband and father?

👏 👏

I don't judge other species by the same standards. The human brain is so much more developed - we should be doing much better for, to, and with our fellow humans if we are to stick around until the sun dies or some other such event obliterates us.

Yes, the environmental impact that we are making here is appalling, too.

Yes there is a moral duty not to be a shitty parent- father or mother.

And given the supposed number of men who arent that interested in being present as fathers then I dont think they would be so bothered about the issue? If you listen to what the majority on here say you would think men would be happy if we stopped having kids.

A lot of the people I hear saying we need to have more children are men, and if my contribution to pregnancy and childbirth was equal to a man's I might find it a lot easier to say we need to do it more. We saw during Covid that the burden of care for elderly relatives and children out of school fell on women, loss of wages fell more on women than men and even in normal everyday life we see childcare, financial restraints and career barriers fall on women more than men.
We lost our first son very traumatically at birth which caused me a very long mental recovery and going through the darkest chapter of my life, and now that I am in a better place, given all the horror stories I have heard about women being failed time and time again during pregnancy and childbirth, as much as I want another baby I am terrified of another pregnancy. We don't have good enough maternity care.
So long story short (sorry this was such a long post), if we want more babies, we need better care for women from pregnancy to childbirth to childcare and support in the workplace. Just saying we need more babies born won't really do a lot.

It would prevent human suffering.

Only after the untold human suffering of the people who are already alive, then sure.

I'm 41 and childfree by choice. I've been with my husband for 20 years. We're high earners and have a nice 4 bed detached house for just the two of us. We have savings. We're sensible, level headed, caring. We would have made great parents. But we've never wanted to do it enough to bother.

Why have we not bothered? Apart from a general 'cant be arsed-ness', it's because of the economics.

Like a poster upthread, it took us YEARS to get on our feet financially. During that time, when we were broke and in our early 20s, the 2007/2008 financial crisis happened. It was terrifying. We wanted to keep our fixed outgoings very low for the rest of our lives - and we have - we have a £500 a month mortgage. And thank god, because we've obviously since had Brexit, Covid, the impact of AI beginning to take hold, and a shattered economy that at best bumbles along. The thriving economy I graduated into in 2006 is a distant memory.

By the time we were comfortable, we were already way too far along with loving our lifestyle to turn it upside down by having kids we weren't bothered about. Especially as I worked my whole life to establish 'a career' (I was told to aim for this throughout my entire education). So, now I have that career, I know it is wildly incompatible with nursery and school schedules. I'm out of the house on an office day from 7.30am-6.30pm. I don't want a child I never see, and don't want to spend a fortune for the privilege.

BUT, I'm interested in demographics. I studied them at university. And I look at the street we live on. 13 x 4 bed detached homes in an affluent town, and we are the ONLY house with working age people in it. And there isn't ONE child on the street. And it's fucking terrifying what that means for society. But, too little too late. When we were younger and more maleable, the economics of bringing kids into the world just didn't stack up in a way that made it even vaguely appealing.

That's late stage capitalism for you 🤷🏼‍♀️

No, the world has already been over run and decimated by our invasive species.

No. Thankfully, we're not quite that far into Handmaid's territory yet. The planet could do with fewer humans, not more.

"That's a pretty weird and offensive statement"

Oh well 🤷‍♀️

So if you could somehow switch off humans' ability to consider moral issues, and let them carry on in the same manner as we currently do (or worse), would that mean humanity doesn't need to "die out" after all?

Environmental issues aside, I don't think it makes sense to say that the one species that the world would be better off without, for moral reasons, is the one that has a concept of morality.

I would give this a listen but like others I can’t abide Ash Sarkhar so I won’t bother.

But it’s an interesting question and one I won’t dismiss out of hand. If we all want to live into a good old age then we need new generations.

That's late stage capitalism for you
Isn't it just.

And yet the general public's response has been to drift further towards the type of politics that has created these issues in the first place.

I responded to your one point. Of course its more than that. Taking away morality doesn't take away the ability to control and destroy everything. A porcupine, as far as I am aware, hasn't designed a civilisation that continues to pillage the earth. Nor does it have the ability to control and destroy on mass scales. Removing morality doesn't prevent capability.

Anyway, I was offering it as an alternative view. Whether I think the earth would be better off without humans, I am still undecided.

I'm all for voluntary extinction too. All humans do is wreck the planet. Other primates perpetuate the forest with every move they make. Even insects do more good than people. Let the orangutans and the ladybirds take over.

"Let the orangutans and the ladybirds take over."

I need this on a t-shirt!!

That sums it up for me too, it's quite straightforward really.

I find the Moral Maze absolutely infuriating.

No, of course not. What a silly question.

Couldn't they find anything more useful to do?

I think we're agreed on the environmental aspect, our impact on the planet is enormous and detrimental to most species (even the ones who have thrived due to human activities, like rats have, will suffer from the effects of climate change).

Its was, specifically, a PP giving acts of violence (like murder and rape) committed by humans as the reason the world would be better off without humans.

The propensity for violence is something we share with many, many species (in fact, we are more restrained than many, due to our sense of morality) so I don't buy that specific argument.

You suggested that the fact humans still commit acts of violence, despite having a developed sense of morality, may mean that the world is, in fact, better off without humans. I dont agree.

Let's say you had 100 people all contained and living in one building. One of them, Bob, has a sense of morality but the other 99 do not. All 100 are capable of acts of violence and many of them commit far more acts of violence than Bob, who is largely (but not completely) restrained by his sense of morality. I'd find it very hard to single out Bob as the person that the building and its other residents would best be rid of, even if one might be inclined to hold him to a higher ethical standard.

I appreciate this is an extremely niche point and only very tangentily related to the OP! Just think we are talking at slight cross-purposes.

No. HTH.

The planet could do with fewer humans, not more

But economically we want a smaller younger population.

If we all want to live into a good old age then we need new generations.

Isn't that the moral dilemma? People will not be able to live to a good old age or at least not in comfort.

It is a moral duty (if you have children) to put their needs first and absolutely do the best that you can

It is not a moral duty to have children

It is a moral duty for society to support those with children and ensure that children and families have the resources they need (childcare; healthcare; education). I would also suggest that at a societal level, housing for families is a critical resource (and other posters have given excellent examples)

Perhaps the question is wrong. It's not a moral duty to have children. But if a couple who would like to have children and who would be good parents cannot afford stable housing despite working hard then do we, as a society, have a moral duty to support ? My view is yes; particularly with the wider demographic challenges.

It's a moral duty to take care of, love and bring up the children you have CHOSEN to have. But there is no moral reason to have them if you don't want them. To whom do we owe this morality? We are lucky enough to live in an age of choice.

I have a friend in her 80s, who lives with 2 adults in their 50s/60s, anyway on her street of about 90 dwellings in London there are no children.

All of the properties have at least two bedrooms. Some are houses and some are flats with a mixture of ownership.

She's in a borough that is closing primary schools but has a massive social housing list for families.

Anyway it's isn't a moral duty for each of us to have our own children but there is a societal duty to properly house educated and nurture the children that are born.