To the culture of death, the current situation is hopeless. No matter what it is.

Tell us: how we can know that any given situation is not merely bad but hopeless?

I took your comments to mean that because that because of suffering in the present, and because most people would not want to bring children into it, that those same people don’t have children. My point was that they have children even in difficult, awful circumstances because they have hope.

Hope this helps, sorry for the confusion.

“And under this view, once you cannot “serve” in utilitarian way then what, off with your head?”

“That’s quite a distortion of anything that’s been said or implied here”-

distortion was not intended, sorry for any offense. I probably should have asked more directly for clarification.

That is how I understood some of the comments or at least what I believe is implied. Note that I ended with a question mark. The question is sincere. I am sincere that I see in some of the comments the belief that once you are not useful, then you are better off dead. If that is not the belief, o.k. but that’s what it sounded like. And that may not be what you think but it may be what others think.

Wait a minute, which is it? Do you agree with my proposition that most people would rather not bring a child into a hopeless situation of poverty, war, and misery? Or do you disagree?

A child pretty much just inhales, eats and existsfor many years until it can do something useful.

First, I think it is pretty clear that one has to look at future potential and not just the present set of circumstances. Just as a hole in the ground with a foundation doesn’t have any use just yet, it’s still worthwhile to continue building because eventually a useful house will be there.

Second, a child’s life obviously has independent purpose from the moment the child becomes self-aware and starts learning and interacting with his or her environment. As you say, being loved and having the capacity to love also form part of the purpose of life.

And under this view, once you cannot “serve” in utilitarian way then what, off with your head?

That’s quite a distortion of anything that’s been said or implied here.

Agreed.

“Still, I bet more people would take the Singer side than your side on this issue if it were put to a vote.”

If this were true the human race would be extinct by now. Poverty, war and misery have existed since the fall of man. While no parent truly wishes suffering on their children, most parents understand that suffering is a part of life and choose to bring children into the world anyways because they have hope that life for their child will better than their own or at least that the suffering will be balanced by much good.

“This still suggests a utilitarian view of life. Life is something more than inhaling oxygen, taking in water, and metabolizing food calories. Life has value because of what you do with it (e.g. continue serving) not simply by virtue of existing”

This is a chilling way of looking at life. No baby should be born under this viewpoint since the baby has no utilitarian value initially. A child pretty much just inhales, eats and existsfor many years until it can do something useful. At birth is it impossible to know if the child will have any value at all so what would be the justification for bringing that child into the world? And under this view, once you cannot “serve” in utilitarian way then what, off with your head? Once we are old and unable to do for the world, is it death by euthanasia?

Slippery slope indeed.

St. Paul’s service may have had utilitarian value but service has never been defined so narrowly by Christians as to suggest that life loses its value once a person can no longer “serve” in some fashion. The old, infirm, and disabled who cannot serve or have limited abilities to serve still have much value. We do have value by just existing because we never just breath and eat, we love and can be loved. But maybe you have to be a Christian to understand that it is a gift to care for someone who can no longer do for themselves or others. That it is in serving them that we are served. There are spiritual aspects to life that are present and have value whether we can serve in the conventional sense or not.

God bless.

Given Singer’s writing supporting bestiality, I would re-phrase.

In Genesis, there are stories of God being quite dissatisfied with human life and choosing to execute almost all of them (Noah) or all who were in a certain place (Sodom). I don’t see how that shows that God finds human life pleasing.

Some religions, basing their claims on the writings they call holy or inspired, assert that those writing reflect the will of God. Those claims are neither objective nor verifiable.

Most people, if placed in an impossible position of poverty, war and misery, would think “I don’t want to bring a baby into this world and have him suffer so much.”

This is a moral intuition rather than a rigorous conclusion. Still, I bet more people would take the Singer side than your side on this issue if it were put to a vote.

If secular philosophers simply could not compete with the claims of divine revelation, I doubt blogs like this would exist in the first place.

The devil is in the details, since “the good life” is an infinitely movable goalpost. One person might argue that bringing a child into a poor family is a moral ill, somebody else might suggest that bringing a child into an unstable country is (and a case can be made for just about any nation there, I fear), and a third person might say that anyone who cannot guarantee reasonably healthy genetics for their offspring cannot be a purveyor of the “good life.”

God has said that, no matter what he may think of human behavior, he finds human life pleasing. That is an objective foundation for ethics, and Singer can’t compete with it.