you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I'm not a fan of utalitarianism myelf, so this might be wrong; this sounds like utalitarianism - as the action you did cause other suffering.

then in your moral philosophy, are all actions that cause suffering (and joy, and all other feelings a human can experience) morally wrong?

Is then not dating, f.ex Morally wrong?

Or is it the impossibility of consent? Yes, a child is unable to consent to being born. Just as we are all unable to consent to the world being created, or nature's whims. I cannot consent to a state on the other side of the world making policies, but I can still react and do things about it.

Is it morally wrong to let animals have children?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If one animal species is harming an ecosystem then I don't see how it's morally wrong to limit their reproduction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Usually, a better way to help an ecosystem balance itself is to reintroduce predators or similarly.

    the deer population in yellowstone was destroying the soil, this was solved by reintroducing wolves.

    there's a big difference between this, and f.ex castrating a lot of the deer, or going on a shooting spree.

    It also goes with the assumption that the ecosystem is either outside the moral spectrum, or morally good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    There's also antinatalism from a deontological perspective.

    But, from the negative utilitarianists I've known and seen, I've found an intense debate about the animal reproduction question. Some say antinatalism should include non-human animals and any other sentient being; some say it's a human-only matter. I do not have an opinion.

  • source
  • parent