Why are "refugees" still having children?

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra, before I get to your post in its entirety, I'd like to focus on the op versus the op title. The op title "Why are "refugees" still having children?" is a part of the overall op. Also, the moral condemnation of parents at the camp for having babies is also only a part of the op.

Whether the title question is a part of it is a matter of terminology, but it's not meant as a question of causes.
I don't agree the moral criticism is only a part of the OP, even if you include the question. It's all of it. The title question seems to extend the moral criticism from the particular pair of parents the OP focuses on, to the rest of the people in the refugee camps, and at most ask for attempts at a moral justification (which, if that's even asked, are expected to all fail).
ETA: after further consideration, I would be inclined to say that there is a secondary aspect in the OP, which is some very brief criticism of the article.

The op is actually much larger in scope and the two above parts mentioned are used as a part of a thesis which is not explicitly stated.

The thesis seems roughly "Refugees who are having children deliberately or after deliberately having unprotected sex in those camps or similar places are behaving immorally" (ETA: plus the secondary criticism of the article)

Is there a reason for "Nivea is nice shit!" Is there a reason to mention the barracks? or the further crossing of borders illegally? Yes, of course there is. It's a general moral condemnation of the decision the mother has made because she is purposefully living outside the army-built shelter (allegedly) to get somewhere else.

Yes, the criticism is that she's allegedly making things even worse for their children by failing to be in the army-built shelter. In other words, it just adds to the moral condemnation of the parents' (or the mother's) behavior. But it's not just because she doesn't live in the shelter, but because she lives in the refugee camp and also keeps having children.

But that's not Derec's gripe or claim. His gripe is that baby suffering is the result of people wanting to invade Europe.

Not quite. It's because they're having children while living in really bad conditions, which is only made worse for their migratory behavior. He's not suggesting that single adults who go to Europe illegally (for example) result in the suffering of babies (he criticizes them for other reasons). This is further criticism of some of the migrants.

He's also got a gripe with the media and "The Left" for portraying the camp as hell without an analysis of the options that led the woman to the camp and her refusal to go to the barracks.

Yes, though that's not in the OP (except for some criticism of the writers of this particular article, but that's not the focus of the OP, but a side point).

And further the reason he put "refugees" in quotes was because in his view many of the people are NOT refugees but are there to spread Islamism further into Europe.

Actually, it's probably because he thinks most of them aren't refugees but economic migrants. But at any rate, the OP is meant to condemn them in this case for having children in those conditions, as an addition to other condemnations he may have made in other threads.

Because of the large scope of the op and the non-existence of an explicitly stated thesis the thread has generated several sub-topics. That is not meant to be judgmental on Derec, I don't mind creativity and art. It just is.

But I don't have the time or the willingness to address all of those issues, I'm afraid. We can choose what to focus on.

Because people generally want to have children they'll examine the cost benefit of the decision, intuitively at least. They will take into account happiness, suffering, survival, and so forth because they value the people in question. I agree that it would be immoral to purposefully bring a person into the world while thinking that they will ONLY suffer and ONLY ever be unhappy. That's a strawman though as very, very few people only suffer and only are unhappy. One can try to make up some probability like "substantial risk" and bad outcomes like "an unhappy life" but those are difficult to quantify as you admitted when you said things are "fuzzy" and you didn't believe in the happiness index.

I didn't bring up only suffering, but in any case, what I said regarding that wasn't a strawman, but an illustration that it's a matter of degrees, and you and Derec and others disagree about what chance of probable suffering makes the decision to risk having children or risking so immoral.
Even if a person is not only unhappy, it would still be immoral to bring them into the world if they're going to suffer a lot, even if that's not all of it. How much counts as "a lot" is a difficult matter.
For example, if some children have a shot at some happiness, but their lives will likely end up as livestock of alien invaders, and they will suffer for months as they wait to be eaten alive in horrible pain, then it would be immoral to have children.
Yes, children in refugee camps aren't like that. It's not the point, though. The point is that this is about disagreements about how much suffering makes it immoral. But all of this is something I didn't (and don't) want to discuss (takes too long, and there is no likely prospect of any significant progress).

Finally, here are some pictures from Derec's linked article of children who clearly are not permanently unhappy:

That's not the issue. If the adults had good reasons to reckon there is a 1/100 chances (for example) that children will grow to burn in Hell for eternity, they should not have children, even if those children are likely to have extremely happy lives on Earth. Nor should they have children in the alien predators case (see above), etc.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

We disagree.

I reread the OP, and it seems very clear to me that the criticism is entirely moral criticism. You misunderstood Derec's OP.

I can read. There is no mention of morality.

I can read too. It's all about morality. One does not need to use the word "morality" to criticize the morality of a behavior.

Still, there is no point in going back and forth with this. How about we ask Derec what he meant?

 

[laughing dog]

We disagree.
I can read. There is no mention of morality.

I can read too. It's all about morality. One does not need to use the word "morality" to criticize the morality of a behavior.

Still, there is no point in going back and forth with this. How about we ask Derec what he meant?

You can insist all you wish about whether the discussion is about morality (which would make the entire thread in the wrong forum) or not. I don't care. I respond to the actual content of the posts.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I can read too. It's all about morality. One does not need to use the word "morality" to criticize the morality of a behavior.

Still, there is no point in going back and forth with this. How about we ask Derec what he meant?

You can insist all you wish about whether the discussion is about morality (which would make the entire thread in the wrong forum) or not. I don't care. I respond to the actual content of the posts.

It's not the wrong forum, as most political discussions here are moral discussions (and there are plenty) while the M&P forum barely has any activity, and so it's customary to discuss matters that are both political and moral in the PD forum, rather than the M&P forum (still, arguably it would be okay in the M&P forum too despite customs, since it's a moral matter, but the point is that the PD forum is still adequate).

But you're not responding to the actual content, but to what you mistakenly believe the actual content is.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It depends on the zombie apocalypse, but if you're talking about Glenn and Maggie, of course that was immoral, because:
1. If they manage to bring a child into that horrific world, that's wrong, even if that's to minuscully contribute to the continuation of the human species.
2. If Maggie miscarries after some basic brain function develops, she will die in a horrific manner, with a walker/crawler trying to eat her from the inside. For that reason alone, Glenn should never have tried.
3. Who made the walkers in the first place?
Surely, they did not evolve. They have a very complex physiology that came out of nowhere (yes, their world works differently, else there wouldn't be walkers. But evolution still happens, apparently). They are a biological weapon (or else, they should reckon they are).
If it was a rogue AI going Skynet on humanity (but using bioweapons instead of nukes), it's over. It will finish everyone off when it chooses to (unless it chooses not to, but that seems improbable given its attack).
If it was aliens, it's over (unless they choose not to kill humans off in the end, but that seems improbable given their attack).
If some humans managed to make the weapon, they probably are inoculated against it, they're living elsewhere and they have working infrastructure and advanced tech, so humanity is not doomed, regardless of babies in the low-tech community.
So, how can they even think of continuing the human species by making babies?
If it's AI or aliens, that's very probably not going to work (and in any case, there is a serious risk of new horrors in the future, so that's another good reason not to have a baby), and if it's humans, then humanity will continue.
4. There are more reasons. But it's just wrong (which doesn't change the fact that Glenn and Maggie are better people than the vast majority of people in that world, it seems). It's probably more wrong for males, though, given the risk you're imposing on their partners.

In point 3., I forgot to add that if it's a simulation and the entities running the simulation made the walkers (and changed the rules to make walkers possible in the first place), humans might or might not survive, but with the PTB willing to bring about such horrors, it's wrong to make more people.

The main characters (and others we've seen) in TWD don't know which one is the case, but it seems given the alternatives (that aren't too improbable), making more people to try to ensure humanity keeps going is not acceptable.

 

[laughing dog]

You can insist all you wish about whether the discussion is about morality (which would make the entire thread in the wrong forum) or not. I don't care. I respond to the actual content of the posts.

It's not the wrong forum, as most political discussions here are moral discussions (and there are plenty) while the M&P forum barely has any activity, and so it's customary to discuss matters that are both political and moral in the PD forum.

But you're not responding to the actual content, but to what you mistakenly believe the actual content is.

Discussions that center around moral issues logically belong in the Morals section. Your mistaken belief about the OP that the discussion is about morality and not politics means that the OP logically belongs in the Morals and Philosophy. Now, if you are softening your position that the discussion is about the morality of the refugee's choices and about the politics (i.e. what to do about the outcomes of those choices), then clearly discussions about the efficacy of policy are appropriate. That means your criticisms about my observations and others are mistaken.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's not the wrong forum, as most political discussions here are moral discussions (and there are plenty) while the M&P forum barely has any activity, and so it's customary to discuss matters that are both political and moral in the PD forum.

But you're not responding to the actual content, but to what you mistakenly believe the actual content is.

Discussions that center around moral issues logically belong in the Morals section. Your mistaken belief about the OP that the discussion is about morality and not politics means that the OP logically belongs in the Morals and Philosophy. Now, if you are softening your position that the discussion is about the morality of the refugee's choices and about the politics (i.e. what to do about the outcomes of those choices), then clearly discussions about the efficacy of policy are appropriate. That means your criticisms about my observations and others are mistaken.

No, the OP is about the morality of the parents' choices (and very indirectly some criticism about an article, but that's secondary).
However, some of those choices (e.g., where to live because of an intention to migrate) may also be considered political, in a broad sense of "political".
Still, if you use "political" in a narrower sense and exclude the choices made by the parents, then it's a moral but not political issue, as are several the OPs of several threads PD forum. But regardless of which forum they belong in, it remains the case that the OP is about the morality of the choices of the parents.

That said, your point wasn't apparently about the efficacy of policy, either. You said it was unrealistic to expect many or most people to adopt a certain standard, but that standard was not proposed as policy by anyone; it was proposed
(well, not really that standard, since you came up with that one. but some other implicit standard) as behavior the refugees (and/or economic migrants) should engage in, not about what to do about the outcomes of their choices, and you apparently didn't make a point about what to do about the outcomes of their choices either, when you said it was an unrealistic standard.

 

[laughing dog]

[
No, the OP is about the morality of the parents' choices (and very indirectly some criticism about an article, but that's secondary). ....

I think you are confuse "morality" with "rationality" in the OP, and the general tenor of the discussions (except for a select few like yourself) seem to agree. This narrow and illogical reading seems to drive your insistence that there is only one dimension to the OP's meaning.

You can hold onto your belief, regardless of the actual words and context. You can continue to justify your belief all you wish. Your arguments are no more convincing now. In fact, they are even less convincing given the number of misrepresentations contained within them.

You are simply wrong that I concocted the standard that it people should not have children under such circumstances. A few posters introduced the concept. In fact, they used the terms "stupid" and "selfish" to describe such refugees. And, I pointed out in numerous posts that that standard had nothing to do with the obvious situation of how to deal with the refugees. And, if you had bothered to read in context, you would have inferred I think we need to just deal with all of the refugees in a humane and reasonable fashion.

It is also patently obvious my observation is about the efficacy of such standard. It is illogical to deny it. Not that I expect any changes in your "arguments".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

For example, if some children have a shot at some happiness, but their lives will likely end up as livestock of alien invaders, and they will suffer for months as they wait to be eaten alive in horrible pain, then it would be immoral to have children.

No it would not.

Morality is a question of choices and consequences, not a matter of statistics. What you do, how you do it, and why you do it all factor into this equation.

Thus it would be immoral to ALLOW your children to be captured and used as livestock. Normal human behavior would see the overwhelming majority of parents doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. Some will succeed, some will not. But a moral action does not cease to be a moral action just because the action fails to produce its intended result. It is for this very reason we do not consider gun makers, car manufacturers and politicians to be inherently immoral even though we know, statistically speaking, their actions will cause some people, somewhere, to suffer.

The point is that this is about disagreements about how much suffering makes it immoral.

And the answer is "none." The parents could be considered to be acting immorally if they deliberately withhold from their children things that will make their lives better and happier.

Creating them in the first place cannot rationally be considered an immoral act unless they created them with the intention of causing them suffering in the future. No sane parent does this, and I don't think the refugees did either.

Finally, here are some pictures from Derec's linked article of children who clearly are not permanently unhappy:

That's not the issue. If the adults had good reasons to reckon there is a 1/100 chances (for example) that children will grow to burn in Hell for eternity, they should not have children...

Bullshit. The mother of a future murder victim isn't morally accountable for her child's suffering, only the murderer is. EVERY PERSON ALIVE has a nonzero chance of dying in an act of horrible violence, but our parents created us anyway despite this. The moral thing to do is to do what you can to prevent this from happening and work for the maximum amount of happiness for your children; not having children AT ALL isn't morally beneficent in that calculus since a non-existent person cannot achieve any amount of happiness whatsoever.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog,

In the usual sense of "political", having children and migrating are (usually) not political choices.
However, it seems customary in the PD forum to discuss moral matters with some more or less significant connection (that's kind of fuzzy) with the strictly political matters usually discussed here.
That is the broader sense of "political" I have in mind.
If you think that those other discussions don't belong in the PD forum, so be it. But it remains the case the OP is about the morality of the parents' choices.

- - - Updated - - -

[
No, the OP is about the morality of the parents' choices (and very indirectly some criticism about an article, but that's secondary). ....

I think you are confuse "morality" with "rationality" in the OP, and the general tenor of the discussions (except for a select few like yourself) seem to agree. This narrow and illogical reading seems to drive your insistence that there is only one dimension to the OP's meaning.

You can hold onto your belief, regardless of the actual words and context. You can continue to justify your belief all you wish. Your arguments are no more convincing now. In fact, they are even less convincing given the number of misrepresentations contained within them.

You are simply wrong that I concocted the standard that it people should not have children under such circumstances. A few posters introduced the concept. In fact, they used the terms "stupid" and "selfish" to describe such refugees. And, I pointed out in numerous posts that that standard had nothing to do with the obvious situation of how to deal with the refugees. And, if you had bothered to read in context, you would have inferred I think we need to just deal with all of the refugees in a humane and reasonable fashion.

It is also patently obvious my observation is about the efficacy of such standard. It is illogical to deny it. Not that I expect any changes in your "arguments".

1. You keep misinterpreting the OP. Whether my posts are convincing to you (obviously, they will never be) is irrelevant.
2. I'm not confusing morality and rationality.
3. Please quote the other posters, who allegedly came up with the standard.
4. The lack of efficacy is a puzzling matter, since the alleged standard is a moral statement. What would be the goal for which a moral statement would be inefficacious? It's either true or false.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No it would not.

Morality is a question of choices and consequences, not a matter of statistics. What you do, how you do it, and why you do it all factor into this equation.

Thus it would be immoral to ALLOW your children to be captured and used as livestock. Normal human behavior would see the overwhelming majority of parents doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. Some will succeed, some will not. But a moral action does not cease to be a moral action just because the action fails to produce its intended result. It is for this very reason we do not consider gun makers, car manufacturers and politicians to be inherently immoral even though we know, statistically speaking, their actions will cause some people, somewhere, to suffer.

The point is that this is about disagreements about how much suffering makes it immoral.

And the answer is "none." The parents could be considered to be acting immorally if they deliberately withhold from their children things that will make their lives better and happier.

Creating them in the first place cannot rationally be considered an immoral act unless they created them with the intention of causing them suffering in the future. No sane parent does this, and I don't think the refugees did either.

Finally, here are some pictures from Derec's linked article of children who clearly are not permanently unhappy:

That's not the issue. If the adults had good reasons to reckon there is a 1/100 chances (for example) that children will grow to burn in Hell for eternity, they should not have children...

Bullshit. The mother of a future murder victim isn't morally accountable for her child's suffering, only the murderer is. EVERY PERSON ALIVE has a nonzero chance of dying in an act of horrible violence, but our parents created us anyway despite this. The moral thing to do is to do what you can to prevent this from happening and work for the maximum amount of happiness for your children; not having children AT ALL isn't morally beneficent in that calculus since a non-existent person cannot achieve any amount of happiness whatsoever.

You act as if your reply addressed my points. It doesn't, for the most part - and it does it wrongly when it does.

Of course the mother of a murder victim is not accountable unless, say 1/2 children are going to be murdered after horrific torture and she knows it - but in any case, that does not affect the culpability of the murderer/torturer. My point about Hell remains true, as are my other points.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No it would not.

Morality is a question of choices and consequences, not a matter of statistics. What you do, how you do it, and why you do it all factor into this equation.

Thus it would be immoral to ALLOW your children to be captured and used as livestock. Normal human behavior would see the overwhelming majority of parents doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. Some will succeed, some will not. But a moral action does not cease to be a moral action just because the action fails to produce its intended result. It is for this very reason we do not consider gun makers, car manufacturers and politicians to be inherently immoral even though we know, statistically speaking, their actions will cause some people, somewhere, to suffer.


And the answer is "none." The parents could be considered to be acting immorally if they deliberately withhold from their children things that will make their lives better and happier.

Creating them in the first place cannot rationally be considered an immoral act unless they created them with the intention of causing them suffering in the future. No sane parent does this, and I don't think the refugees did either.

Finally, here are some pictures from Derec's linked article of children who clearly are not permanently unhappy:

That's not the issue. If the adults had good reasons to reckon there is a 1/100 chances (for example) that children will grow to burn in Hell for eternity, they should not have children...

Bullshit. The mother of a future murder victim isn't morally accountable for her child's suffering, only the murderer is. EVERY PERSON ALIVE has a nonzero chance of dying in an act of horrible violence, but our parents created us anyway despite this. The moral thing to do is to do what you can to prevent this from happening and work for the maximum amount of happiness for your children; not having children AT ALL isn't morally beneficent in that calculus since a non-existent person cannot achieve any amount of happiness whatsoever.

You act as if your reply addressed my points. It doesn't, for the most part - and it does it wrongly when it does.

Of course the mother of a murder victim is not accountable unless, say 1/2 children are going to be murdered after horrific torture and she knows it - but in any case, that does not affect the culpability of the murderer/torturer. My point about Hell remains true, as are my other points.

When we discussed "substantial" before, you wrote it was fuzzy, but now you're giving 50% as an example? 20% could conceivably be considered "substantial," too. Also, a child being murdered doesn't mean they have an unhappy life. Their existence ended, perhaps horrifically and perhaps not. Part of the reason this is a bad thing is because we value human life and the potential for good things to come out of it. So the extinguishing of such human life is tragic. That's a different variable than the happiness variable and includes values.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog,

The standard is "that pregnancy should only be carried to term in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child".
Whether we call it a standard or something else, it's a statement. It's either true or false. Moreover, it's a moral statement, unless that "should" is not a moral "should", in which case it's even less connected to the points other people were making (and to the OP) than i thought.
But either way (i.e., regardless of whether it's a moral "should" or a means-to-ends "should"), it's either true or false.
In which sense would it be inefficacious?
If you're talking about efficacy, you're talking about means and ends. So, what ends would the standard be inefficacious for achieving? And who would be the person allegedly applying the standard in an inefficacious manner? And how is that related to any of the matters that people were discussing in the thread?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Morality is a question of choices and consequences, not a matter of statistics. What you do, how you do it, and why you do it all factor into this equation.

Sure, and also probabilities of consequences of choices factor into the equation.

The point is that this is about disagreements about how much suffering makes it immoral.

And the answer is "none." The parents could be considered to be acting immorally if they deliberately withhold from their children things that will make their lives better and happier.

With that criterion, even if by the age of 3, 99/100 children are covered in gasoline and then burn alive, it would not be immoral to have children (for the reasons people usually have children).
Does your moral sense actually yield that verdict?

That's not the issue. If the adults had good reasons to reckon there is a 1/100 chances (for example) that children will grow to burn in Hell for eternity, they should not have children...

Bullshit.

Are you so angry that you can't realize I'm stating a truth that should be obvious? Or is it that it clashes with your ideology? (I'm talking about having children for any of the usual reasons, not perhaps to avoid the certainty of burning in Hell for more people, in which case things begin to be more debatable).
But let me try again, to make the point I was making:

If the adults had good reasons to reckon there is a 99/100 chances (for example) that children will grow to burn in Hell for eternity, they should not have children. Would you also deny that?
How about: If the adults have good reasons (i.e., it's a proper probabilistic assessment) that if they have children, there is a 999999/1000000 chance that they will burn forever in Hell (or "just" for 1000 years, after leading a normal happy life), they ought not to have children.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course the mother of a murder victim is not accountable unless, say 1/2 children are going to be murdered after horrific torture and she knows it...

... which she does not know, and cannot know, because humans cannot see the future. You can tell her there is a STATISTICAL PROBABILITY that half of her children are going to die, but morality is defined by choices, not statistics.

My point about Hell remains true

It remains false for the same reason as all your other points. No one actually KNOWS that their children are going to suffer a life of deprivation and unhappiness on the day they're born. They may suspect this is a strong possibility, but if that's the case they will do everything they possibly can to enrich their lives as much as possible.

If I was the kind of person who believed that hell exists and that my son had a one in a hundred chance of going there, I would do everything I could to make sure he doesn't wind up being that one in a hundred. That choice satisfies my moral obligations completely. Choosing, on the other hand, not to have a son at all isn't the morally preferable choice; choosing not to have a child may prevent him from suffering in hell, but it ALSO prevents him from enjoying heaven.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Sure, and also probabilities of consequences of choices factor into the equation.

Which, again, the parents don't actually know. They can only make the most informed guess that they can about what the immediate or distant future holds for them.

Beyond that, the most important factor into the decision is what kind of actions THEY are willing to take in the future. A homeless woman who becomes pregnant knows what options she has on the table and what she'll need to do to give her child the best life she can; if she isn't willing to do those things, and she KNOWS she isn't willing, then having the child anyway (and not giving it up for adoption) is morally questionable. OTOH, she could decide to apply for food stamps, move in with her parents, or swallow her pride and go work at McDonalds so she can afford an apartment. If she decides she's going to take the actions needed to give her child a better life, then she is indeed being morally responsible.

The overall nationwide statistical average of her possible outcomes simply isn't a relevant factor.

With that criterion, even if by the age of 3, 99/100 children are covered in gasoline and then burn alive, it would not be immoral to have children (for the reasons people usually have children).

Correct. Covering children with gasoline and lighting them on fire is an immoral act. Causing those children to exist in the first place is not.

Does your moral sense actually yield that verdict?

Of course it does. Particularly for the one parent in one hundred who has no intention of lighting their child on fire. OTOH, it's likely that the PARENTS are not the ones making that decision and the burnings are taking place against the parents' wishes. In that case, none of the parents have done anything immoral; it's the assholes with the gasoline you need to look at.

Are you so angry that you can't realize I'm stating a truth that should be obvious?

No, i'm calling you on your bullshit.

If the adults had good reasons to reckon there is a 99/100 chances (for example) that children will grow to burn in Hell for eternity, they should not have children. Would you also deny that?

Yes. For exactly the same reason as above: unless "Send my child to hell" is a decision the PARENTS are making, then the moral failure is on the part of whatever psychopathic deity is making that decision against their wills. If the parents are given the choice, they will INVARIABLY choose not to send their child to hell; the one who deprives them of that choice is the one acting immorally.

How about: If the adults have good reasons (i.e., it's a proper probabilistic assessment) that if they have children, there is a 999999/1000000 chance that they will burn forever in Hell (or "just" for 1000 years, after leading a normal happy life), they ought not to have children.

Still no.

They ought not worship the fucking asshole god that created such obscene conditions, and they ought to look up Sam and Dean Winchester to figure out how to dispose of said god at the earliest possible opportunity.

But people are not morally culpable for actions that OTHER PEOPLE take. And statistics or not, they definitely aren't morally culpable for bad luck.

 

[laughing dog]

laughing dog,

The standard is "that pregnancy should only be carried to term in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child".
Whether we call it a standard or something else, it's a statement. It's either true or false. Moreover, it's a moral statement, unless that "should" is not a moral "should", in which case it's even less connected to the points other people were making (and to the OP) than i thought.

If it is not a moral "should" than it is even more connected to OP.

But either way (i.e., regardless of whether it's a moral "should" or a means-to-ends "should"), it's either true or false.

No, that is untrue. If it is "should", as in "it is good idea" then it is may simply be a guide to action.

In which sense would it be inefficacious?

In the obvious sense that people do not act that way nor is the any realistic hope that people will act that way.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Which, again, the parents don't actually know.

It's a hypothetical scenario.

The overall nationwide statistical average of her possible outcomes simply isn't a relevant factor.

I'm not talking about nationwide statistical averages, but about statistics that are relevant factors, as explained in the scenarios.

Correct. Covering children with gasoline and lighting them on fire is an immoral act. Causing those children to exist in the first place is not.

That's absurd.
Let me add details if you insist: by the age of 3, 99/100 children are covered in gasoline and then burned alive. That has been so for decades, and adults know it. There is no reason to suspect any force will change that. Let's say advanced aliens invaded the Earth and are doing it, and they promise to keep doing it for a thousand years or until humans become extinct, whatever happens first. After 1000 years, they will exterminate humans if they're still around. So far, all of their promises have been monstrous, and all of them true in the cases the deadlines have already passed.
Based on that, a proper probabilistic assessment is that it's very probable (almost 99/100) that if they have a child, the child will be tortured and killed in that fashion.
Obviously, it would be immoral to have children, for the reasons people usually have children.

Of course it does. Particularly for the one parent in one hundred who has no intention of lighting their child on fire. OTOH, it's likely that the PARENTS are not the ones making that decision and the burnings are taking place against the parents' wishes. In that case, none of the parents have done anything immoral; it's the assholes with the gasoline you need to look at.

The parents and the assholes with the gasoline are guilty of different behaviors; the former are guilty of having children given those odds, and the latter of the burning. Well, if they're moral agents in the first place.

No, i'm calling you on your bullshit.

No, it's not bullshit. But you believe and will always believe so, which is annoying. But you just offended me enough to prompt me to reply (still, with all of the anger directed at me from both left and right, this is surely not worth the stress, so I'm going to leave the forum as a poster, at least for a while, maybe permanently. I'll just read the posts that are worth reading. But not before I debunk a few more posts coming my way in this thread).

If the adults had good reasons to reckon there is a 99/100 chances (for example) that children will grow to burn in Hell for eternity, they should not have children. Would you also deny that?

Yes. For exactly the same reason as above: unless "Send my child to hell" is a decision the PARENTS are making, then the moral failure is on the part of whatever psychopathic deity is making that decision against their wills. If the parents are given the choice, they will INVARIABLY choose not to send their child to hell; the one who deprives them of that choice is the one acting immorally.

They're both acting immorally (well, the monster only if it is a moral agent in the first place).

How about: If the adults have good reasons (i.e., it's a proper probabilistic assessment) that if they have children, there is a 999999/1000000 chance that they will burn forever in Hell (or "just" for 1000 years, after leading a normal happy life), they ought not to have children.

Still no.

They ought not worship the fucking asshole god that created such obscene conditions, and they ought to look up Sam and Dean Winchester to figure out how to dispose of said god at the earliest possible opportunity.

Of course they're guilty.

The monster is guilty for its own actions (unless it's not a moral agent), regardless of the guilt of the parents, and the parents are guilty for their own actions, regardless of what the monster in the end does.

But people are not morally culpable for actions that OTHER PEOPLE take. And statistics or not, they definitely aren't morally culpable for bad luck.

Of course they're not responsible for the actions that OTHER PEOPLE take. Whether the monster actually sends their child to Hell is irrelevant to the matter of their blameworthiness. They are blameworthy for their own action of bringing a child given those odds.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If it is not a moral "should" than it is even more connected to OP.

On the contrary, it's not. And people of course were talking about moral matters.

No, that is untrue. If it is "should", as in "it is good idea" then it is may simply be a guide to action.

That's not what the word "should" means.

In the obvious sense that people do not act that way nor is the any realistic hope that people will act that way.

Not only is that not an obvious sense, but it's obvious that it's not a sense of policy efficacy at all. In other words, you weren't even criticizing a proposed policy with that comment.
What is obvious is that it's unrealistic to expect that most people in refugee camps will act that way. But I challenge you to show that your opponents in this thread who suggested otherwise.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No it would not.

Morality is a question of choices and consequences, not a matter of statistics. What you do, how you do it, and why you do it all factor into this equation.

Thus it would be immoral to ALLOW your children to be captured and used as livestock. Normal human behavior would see the overwhelming majority of parents doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. Some will succeed, some will not. But a moral action does not cease to be a moral action just because the action fails to produce its intended result. It is for this very reason we do not consider gun makers, car manufacturers and politicians to be inherently immoral even though we know, statistically speaking, their actions will cause some people, somewhere, to suffer.


And the answer is "none." The parents could be considered to be acting immorally if they deliberately withhold from their children things that will make their lives better and happier.

Creating them in the first place cannot rationally be considered an immoral act unless they created them with the intention of causing them suffering in the future. No sane parent does this, and I don't think the refugees did either.

Finally, here are some pictures from Derec's linked article of children who clearly are not permanently unhappy:

That's not the issue. If the adults had good reasons to reckon there is a 1/100 chances (for example) that children will grow to burn in Hell for eternity, they should not have children...

Bullshit. The mother of a future murder victim isn't morally accountable for her child's suffering, only the murderer is. EVERY PERSON ALIVE has a nonzero chance of dying in an act of horrible violence, but our parents created us anyway despite this. The moral thing to do is to do what you can to prevent this from happening and work for the maximum amount of happiness for your children; not having children AT ALL isn't morally beneficent in that calculus since a non-existent person cannot achieve any amount of happiness whatsoever.

You act as if your reply addressed my points. It doesn't, for the most part - and it does it wrongly when it does.

Of course the mother of a murder victim is not accountable unless, say 1/2 children are going to be murdered after horrific torture and she knows it - but in any case, that does not affect the culpability of the murderer/torturer. My point about Hell remains true, as are my other points.

When we discussed "substantial" before, you wrote it was fuzzy, but now you're giving 50% as an example? 20% could conceivably be considered "substantial," too. Also, a child being murdered doesn't mean they have an unhappy life. Their existence ended, perhaps horrifically and perhaps not. Part of the reason this is a bad thing is because we value human life and the potential for good things to come out of it. So the extinguishing of such human life is tragic. That's a different variable than the happiness variable and includes values.

My replies to Crazy Eddie are not my replies to you, since his position is quite different from yours.
My replies to Crazy Eddie debunk Crazy Eddie's points, not yours.
And I added the specification that they were murdered after horrific torture because that was in line with the example Crazy Eddie was replying to (about Hell), and he just removed it, so I realized he might want to focus on the murder only, which wouldn't serve the purpose of my example.
Also, what was fuzzy was the line (i.e., when it's immoral and when it's not), not the chances of unhappiness. That might be fuzzy too, but it's not what I was talking about.
Still, for that matter, in my reply to Crazy Eddie, I might as well replace 50% for "somewhere over 90%", and the argument goes through (again, that's my reply to Crazy Eddie, not to you).