I agree with what Ross says about the sociological study that says having more than one kid doesn’t make you any happier. As a father-to-be, I’m not having kids because I think it will make me happy. I hope it will. But I’m principally having kids because I think it’s an end in itself, that I have a duty to the future to create and form a good person to advance the human comedy one more generation. To not have kids because it might affect my life is the ultimate selfishness, no? To sacrifice the future to sustain my present?

We all do things that we must do, whether we like them or not. I work a job because I need to provide for myself and my family and I hope to contribute something with my time on this planet. That I enjoy my work is a nice side effect. I also do a lot of things I don’t like because I must. That includes mowing the lawn, cleaning the house, scooping the cat litter, etc., etc. I have always hated the Utilitarian philosophy.

I hope that having kids will bring me happiness. And I think it will. But that’s not the reason I’m doing it.

Via the Agitator, I found this philosophical phart that reminds me of the arguments I used to have with my college philosophy teacher.

That bringing a child into existence is “one of the greatest goods there is” may be a truism in Ross’s moral scheme, it somehow figures into none of the major moral philosophies in the history of moral philosophy, as far as I can tell.

Apparently, he hasn’t read the Bible. I guess religion doesn’t count as “philosophy”. But the Bible is, in fact, the source of our oldest major moral philosophy and the one that still has the most relevance in America. And it’s first commandment is to be fruitful and multiply. Try telling the Catholic Church that no major moral philosophy regards having kids as a supreme moral good.

But even putting the Bible aside . . . as I argued back in undergraduate school, if the major moral philosophies don’t see reproduction as one of the greatest goods there is, then the major moral philosophies are garbage. Any philosophy that does not have the survival and continuation of the human race as an important principle is automatically defunct. An extinct race, by definition, does not behave morally.

Ross is saying that there exists a person who is harmed by the fact that it has not been made to exist. It refutes itself.

No it doesn’t. Or maybe he’s missed the whole abortion debate.

And the spectre of “a mostly unhappy world swimming in billions upon billion of children” is the reducto ad absurdum. No one outside of the Vatican is suggesting that people should have as many babies as possible. But we are suggesting the replacing ourselves might be a good idea — and a supreme moral good.

I especially love the psycho-analysis at the end where he concludes that Ross must want a big family. Well, two can play at that game. I conclude this is written by one of the defensive non-breeders who gets extra miffed when someone suggets that being fruitful and multiplying might be important. And that the next generation is the only real legacy we will ever have.

Update: Looking back over my comments, I should clarify that I don’t think the inverse is true — that not having kids is a supreme moral evil. There are people who can’t have kids and that’s not their fault. There are people who shouldn’t. And there are people who find other ways of contributing to humanity (Michelangelo, for example). What I’m saying is that having chidlren is “a” supreme moral good, not “the” supreme moral good.