In another thread, a claim was made that we are entitled to have children. Are we? This is a commonly believed idea, whether stated in these terms or not. But is it well-justified? — petrichor

A killer whale undoubtedly believes that grey whales have every right to have children, because that is what they count on for their lunch: grey whale baby calves.

Nowadays, there is unfortunately no species counting on snatching human babies from their mothers, and who can vouch for the dire need to produce them in as large quantities as possible.

Therefore, what we lack, is the Devil's advocate, i.e. some biological, baby-snatching predator who declares that he sees a real need for our sexual reproduction work. We may solve the problem by letting some lions loose?

I just looked it up in the dictionary. Basically it says that entitlements are rights. And if I look up rights, basically it says they are entitlements. Each is even listed as a synonym of the other. Not very helpful!

I just looked it up in the dictionary. Basically it says that entitlements are rights. And if I look up rights, basically it says they are entitlements. Each is even listed as a synonym of the other. Not very helpful! — petrichor

Okay, so... what? You expect me to believe that you haven't a clue what a right is, what it entails, and that you can't think up any examples, despite racking your brains?

Why should I humour you in this charade? What would I get out of that?

Considering the amount of harm done to children and their environment by bad parenting, I don't think it stands to reason that every one should be having children as they desire. — Tzeentch

This thread isn't about the question of whether or not people should have children. It is about the idea that we are entitled to have them.

However, forbidding people from reproducing is just a horribly impractical thing, and enforcing such regulations would almost inevitably end with some draconian methods. — Tzeentch

Sure. Still, do have the right to have kids? Is this idea well-justified? We might find that it isn't, that we aren't justified in believing that we do. The question of whether reproduction should be outlawed is then another question.

If you're not interested in those questions people would naturally ask in relation to your topic, I suppose you'd be better off consulting a lawbook.

I already made clear my reason for asking you what rights are. I don't think you can justify your claim that we are entitled to have children. You accused someone else of not understanding entitlement. I suspect that you don't understand what you're accusing that person of not understanding.

Just a flat assertion that we have a right to X and then a "defense" of that claim by just accusing people of not understanding rights is not going to fly in philosophy circles.

The question of whether we should or shouldn't have children is being done to death in a thousand other threads. I want to zoom in on this one particular claim that we are entitled to have children. I am zooming in on that idea of entitlement or rights here. Make sense? There's plenty here to chew on philosophically.

I'm really confused. There are two almost identical threads going at the same time. They are discussing the same issues. The same people are participating in them. Hows about they be combined. There's also a separate anti-natalism thread still running.

Are there any other current threads specifically about the entitlement to have children? I tried to direct interest in this question over here from the other thread since it isn't quite on-topic there. I created this thread and linked here. I want to focus here on the claim of entitlement, even the question of what entitlements are. The other thread is about what really motivates antinatalism, whether it is reasoning or one's personality. This thread has a different focus.

Can we talk about entitlements without getting bogged down defending the purpose of the thread?

Isn't the question of whether or not we should have a right or entitlement to reproduce answered by the question of whether or not all people should be having children? ...

If your view is wildly different then perhaps give us your thoughts on the matter first.

If you are interested in defending your claim about entitlements, please do it in this thread I created just for the purpose of focusing on the question of the entitlement to have kids:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6564/are-we-entitled-to-have-children

I already made clear my reason for asking you what rights are. — petrichor

You made a point about a circular definition without addressing my criticism that you know the answer to your question without my assistance, and that you are in fact merely feigning ignorance because apparently you think that that's what philosophy is all about.

I don't think you can justify your claim that we are entitled to have children. — petrichor

And that's just speculation or opinion which I see little reason to care a great deal about.

You accused someone else of not understanding entitlement. — petrichor

Yes, and understandably so, because he seemed to be conflating it with freedom.

I suspect that you don't understand what you're accusing that person of not understanding. — petrichor

I don't care about your uncharitable suspicions. You can keep them to yourself.

Just a flat assertion that we have a right to X and then a "defense" of that claim by just accusing people of not understanding rights is not going to fly in philosophy circles. — petrichor

That clearly wasn't intended as a defence of the claim that people are entitled to start a family. You're just trying to make me look bad, and you're coming across as elitist.

Isn't the question of whether or not we should have a right or entitlement to reproduce answered by the question of whether or not all people should be having children? ... — Tzeentch

Different question. Related, sure, but different. I want to focus on why people think they are entitled to have children. Are they justified in believing they have this entitlement?

It could be that we are entitled to do as we wish with our bodies, for example, in using meth, but the question of whether we really should is another question. I am interested here specifically in whether we are entitled. And I welcome broader discussion on the matter of rights or entitlements generally. What is a right? Is belief in rights justified?

Forget it. I thought there was an opportunity to do some actually philosophy here. But it seems you aren't interested in that.

Haven't you ever read Plato? I was trying to draw you into something a bit like a Socratic dialogue, my role being that of gadfly. You clearly don't want to examine your beliefs. And that's fine. I'll go play elsewhere.

Forget it. I thought there was an opportunity to do some actually philosophy here. But it seems you aren't interested in that. — petrichor

On the contrary, it's because I'm interested in actual philosophy that I'm so critical of lines of inquiry which are a waste of time because we already know the answer. The question of what rights are is not controversial enough for me to have much of an interest in.

Haven't you ever read Plato? I was trying to draw you into something a bit like a Socratic dialogue, my role being that of gadfly. You clearly don't want to examine your beliefs. And that's fine. I'll go play elsewhere. — petrichor

I was well aware of what you were trying to do in playing Socrates, but that's an approach to philosophy which I am critical of, hence why I reacted in the way that I did. I say stop the pretence, let's start with what we know, and then we might have a chance of getting somewhere productive. That's what I consider doing actual philosophy. It does help to have common sense and intelltual honesty.

But I'm quite happy to forget it.

What if we're not realists on rights? — Terrapin Station

What of it? I'm not a realist on rights, and I'm the one who made the claim. There's no contradiction there because obviously as an ethical anti-realist, I abide by an interpretation of rights consistent with that stance.

We're entitled to have children by default, in accordance with liberalism, and we only lose that entitlement if there's a valid reason for it, which would be a matter for social services, not the whackier members of this philosophy forum.

Lacking any justified objections, we can have children if we so desire. The only objections that I've seen (and I've seen a lot of them over the years) are riddled with faults, such as exaggeration and cherry picking. In the other discussion, an argument was made which commited a fallacy of relevance by referring to necessity or a guarantee, which simply aren't required as part of the justification which I accept.

We are "entitled" to do as we please so long as doing so does not infringe upon the freedoms of others. This, it seems to me, is not a very controversial idea on this forum. It would follow that we are entitled to have children unless it can be demonstrated that doing so violates the freedom of others.

When we talk about rights, at least in the American context, there is the claim that they are endowed by our Creator, which is a religious reference. Atheists also believe we have all sorts of rights, but I think it's harder for them to establish a basis for them. — Hanover

It definitely isn't, because those whose arguable justification depends on the existence of a Creator have the infinitely harder task of first establishing the existence of a Creator.

Atheists can easily appeal to the moral sentiment common to us all.

I approve of the discussion merger.

What of it? I'm not a realist on rights, and I'm the one who made the claim. There's no contradiction there because obviously as an ethical anti-realist, I abide by an interpretation of rights consistent with that stance. — S

I'm confused that the thread got merged, especially when the other thread specified that he didn't want to get into the typical antinatalist stuff.

Anyway, I can't find what would have been the initial post of the other thread that I responded to . . . it seems like maybe petrichor changed it when it got merged into this thread. I asked him about rights realism because he was framing his discussion in terms of rights.

Atheists can easily appeal to the moral sentiment common to us all. — S

<----definitely not what I'd be doing, but I'm not a rah-rah conformist like you. :-p

It definitely isn't, because those whose arguable justification depends on the existence of a Creator have the infinitely harder task of first establishing the existence of a Creator.

Atheists can easily appeal to the moral sentiment common to us all. — S

There isn't a universal cross-cultural moral sentiment. The Saudi Arabian government, for example, does not acknowledge their immorality, but it instead believes it to be enforcing what is just.

Regardless, if you leave to the democracy what rights one should have, then you're not talking about rights in the inalienable sense, but you're just talking only about current public sentiment. The idea behind rights (as I see it at least) is that there are certain things every person should have regardless of the opinions of others. If I have the right to free speech, that means that no government can take it from me. I own it, even if all the population thinks I'm undeserving. It's the distinction between relative and absolute, and you can't have an absolute if it rests in something that is dependent upon the culture, the time, or the idiosyncrasies of the current population pool.

On the other hand, if the right is rooted in something immutable, then the universe must revolve around it, and not vice versa. But to your point, there is no proving God's existence, so if one cannot hold to such a belief, one cannot hold to a belief in rights.

Fine. We'll be off-topic here then. I was trying to avoid diverting another thread, but that apparently wasn't appreciated. So let's examine the concept of rights in the antinatalism thread.

What of it? I'm not a realist on rights, and I'm the one who made the claim. There's no contradiction there because obviously as an ethical anti-realist, I abide by an interpretation of rights consistent with that stance. — S

Interesting. Can you explain the "interpretation of rights consistent with that stance"? It would seem to me that claiming you have rights when you say you don't believe rights are real surely involves a contradiction.

I'm confused that the thread got merged, especially when the other thread specified that he didn't want to get into the typical antinatalist stuff. — Terrapin Station

I agree that this discussion merger didn't pay close attention to what the OP was asking. I took this more recent discussion as asking what the bases of rights were, with the question of whether one should have the right to have children just an example of what might be a fundamental right.

I'm confused that the thread got merged, especially when the other thread specified that he didn't want to get into the typical antinatalist stuff. — Terrapin Station

Right. The typical anti-natalist stuff always involves responses where people explain why they think that people are entitled to have children, whereas his discussion involves responses where people explain why they think that people are entitled to have children.

I asked him about rights realism because he was framing his discussion in terms of rights. — Terrapin Station

Since rights aren't exclusive to ethical realism, that makes no sense.

Right. The typical anti-natalist stuff always involves people explaining why they think that people are entitled to have children, whereas his discussion involves people explaining why they think that people are entitled to have children. — S

I think that's an overly literal interpretation of the OP. Where you say "have children," I'd substitute it with X, where the question is why anyone is entitled to anything.

<----definitely not what I'd be doing, but I'm not a rah-rah conformist like you. :-p — Terrapin Station

No, you're a loony, out there, outspoken, fringe view kind of guy.

There isn't a universal cross-cultural moral sentiment. — Hanover

I agree, but then there doesn't need to be. It doesn't have to be universal. There are enough of us where I'm from for it to be the norm.

Regardless, if you leave to the democracy what rights one should have, then you're not talking about rights in the inalienable sense, but you're just talking only about current public sentiment. The idea behind rights (as I see it at least) is that there are certain things every person should have regardless of the opinions of others. — Hanover

What do you mean, "regardless of the opinion of others"? I'm fine with rejecting the opinion of others, and with suggesting that they should adopt mine. I do that all the time. It's all opinion, basically. That's where rights can be traced to, though they can be traced even further back than that, as we have opinions on moral matters because of our moral sentiments. In any case, that's a much more defensible explanation than that they come from a Creator!

If I have the right to free speech, that means that no government can take it from me. I own it, even if all the population thinks I'm undeserving. It's the distinction between relative and absolute, and you can't have an absolute if it rests in something that is dependent upon the culture, the time, or the idiosyncrasies of the current population pool. — Hanover

I am fine with the part in your example about the government not being able to take it away from you in an ethical sense, and even if you hypothetically extend that to the rest of the world. But that by no means makes it absolute. It makes it minimally relative to you, or rather your moral sentiments behind the right. Moral absolutism is a nonsense. It's always necessarily relative to something or someone as a minimum requirement.

On the other hand, if the right is rooted in something immutable, then the universe must revolve around it, and not vice versa. — Hanover

That's a really big if. What would that be? And please don't say a Creator. Credible suggestions only.

But to your point, there is no proving God's existence, so if one cannot hold to such a belief, one cannot hold to a belief in rights. — Hanover

That's simply not true. At all. The vast majority of atheists believe in rights.

Hanover, your comments are genuinely helpful in moving toward the actual material I'd like to get us thinking about. Thank you.



So far we seem to have God and common moral sentiment as possible justifications for claims of rights.

Someone basing their claim to rights on their "God-givenness", even if we assume God is real, still has a lot of work to do, it seems to me. Just saying that I have a right to X because God gave it to me is a lot of flat assertion. How do I know what rights God gave me? What does that even mean for God to "give me a right"? Does it merely mean that God allows me to do certain things, that they are, in a sense, simply legal?

It seems to me that the claim that I have rights is different from the claim that some higher authority allows me to do certain things.

As for moral sentiment, is this saying basically that I feel I have a right, and therefore I do? Isn't this problematic?

What does that even mean, that I "have a right"? It isn't quite the same as saying that I am unconstrained, physically or otherwise. It isn't quite the same as saying that something is legal. What is it exactly? I honestly find it puzzling. I wonder if we know what we are talking about when we speak of rights.

It seems to me that it is primarily rooted in a feeling, maybe something like what a small child feels when screaming, "MINE!" Is it more than this? Is that feeling justified? Is it some kind of instinct?

It would seem that the sense that we have "a right to do as we please" is rooted ultimately in a sense of self-ownership. I'm mine. My body is mine. Not yours. We should be able to do with what is ours as we please. Nobody else's business. Something like that?

But if I look into that feeling in myself, I find that it's basically a sense of frustration at my will being obstructed. This then takes the form in my mind of the idea that my will ought not be obstructed. Is this leap justified?

Something like property rights gives us the basic sort of right. No?

It would seem that we are dealing with the basic idea of libertarianism, which is that the only justifiable role of the state is to protect liberty, and that my freedom ends where the other person's nose begins. Yes?

But isn't this basic sense of mineness itself open to question? And isn't that what entitlement is really reducible to? Basically a feeling of mineness?