So much for trying to bring philosophy to the public

[Wilikon]

Torbjorn Tannsjo, Kristian Claëson Professor of Practical Philosophy at Stockholm University, asked me to share the following experience he recently had.

Dylan Matthews, a philosophically-minded editor at Vox.com, solicited Professor Tannsjo to write a piece for Vox  on the "repugnant conclusion." More precisely, Mr. Matthews wrote:

I'm an editor for the US news site Vox.com, and we're trying to start a new series where philosophers and other thinkers argue for provocative and/or counterintuitive propositions that our readers might find intriguing.

I'm a big fan of your work from my undergraduate years — there aren't a lot of fellow hedonic utilitarians in philosophy! — and in particular found your argument for accepting the repugnant conclusion very compelling. It's a fascinating problem, and one that's fairly easy for lay readers to get into — people care about population size, and "We have a duty to make the world's population as large as possible" is a proposition that demands peoples' attention.

I'm writing to ask if you'd like to write up a popular version of your argument on this for Vox.

Prof. Tannsjo obliged, and produced this piece:


You should have kids. Not because it’s fun, or rewarding, or in your evolutionary self-interest.

You should have kids because it’s your moral duty to do so.

My argument is simple. Most people live lives that are, on net, happy. For them to never
exist, then, would be to deny them that happiness. And because I think we have a moral duty
to maximize the amount of happiness in the world, that means that we all have an obligation
to make the world as populated as can be.

Of course, we should see to it that we do not overpopulate the planet in a manner that
threatens the future existence of mankind. But we’re nowhere near that point yet, at least not
if we also see to it that we solve pressing problems such as the one with global warming. In
the mean time, we’re ethically obligated to make as many people as possible.

This idea, that having children is a moral obligation, is controversial, so much so that it’s
known in philosophy as the “repugnant conclusion.” But I don’t think it’s repugnant at all.

We have obligations to people who don’t exist yet

You might be thinking at this point, “Sure, more happiness sounds good. But morality is
about helping people, and creating more people helps ‘people’ who don’t exist, not yet
anyway.” This view is known as actualism. Only actual individuals have rights. We have not
done anything wrong, unless there is an actual person who has a legitimate complaint to
make against our action.

This means that, if I do not create a happy individual, even if I can do so, I do nothing wrong.
A merely hypothetical individual has no legitimate complaint to make. This is the great appeal
of actualism: it means that people have total freedom in choosing whether to reproduce or
not. My view suggests that we have a moral obligation to keep having children; actualism lets
people do as they like.

I can’t help finding all this problematic. Imagine for a second that the Genesis story is actually
true. Under the actualist view, Adam and Eve could have morally refrained from having
children, even if, had they decided differently, billions of billions of happy persons would have
been around!

Here is another consequence of the theory. Suppose I have a choice as to whether to have a
baby at 15 or at 35. If I have the baby at 15, I’ll earn much less money in my career, the baby
will go to worse schools and live in a worse neighborhood, and generally her life will be much
tougher. If I have her at 35, I’ll be able to adequately provide for the baby, pay for college,
and so forth. If I have the baby at 15, then, did I do anything wrong? I did not, by actualist
reasoning. There is no one there to complain about what I did. The baby is, after all, happy to
be around. By creating her, I did not violate her rights. And the hypothetical baby I would’ve
had at 35 isn’t around to complain. But this cannot be right. If these are the options I have, I
ought to wait. The world where I have a baby at 35 is just happier than the one where I have
a baby at 15.

Why a world with many more people wouldn’t be so bad

The idea that people are morally obliged to have as many children as possible has some
radical implications. The biggest is that a world in which many people — 20, 50, even 100
billion — are alive, but each has a life that’s only barely worth living, is preferable to a world
where only, say, 10 billion people are extremely happy. Let’s call these Big Bad World and
Small Happy World, respectively.

This conclusion may seem ludicrous. Of course you’d rather live in a world where everyone’s
happy than one where people are just scraping by! But this intuition is wrong.

Imagine that the end of Small Happy World is the end of humankind. Everyone’s as happy as
can be, and then they all die. Meanwhile, in Big Bad World, the human race continues on for
billions of years, at a level where life is worth living, but not spectacular. Would we not then
feel that the Small Happy World people are doing selfish? Rather than going on with the
human race, and accept the sacrifice that this means, they’re living high and not letting
anyone succeed them. This is clearly wrong.

Furthermore, it’s difficult to get a grasp of what Big Bad World would be like. But the way
people live there may be similar to the way we live. There are ups and downs in our lives.
Perhaps a typical human life often ends up with only a little happiness as its net sum.
Perhaps many lives end up with a negative sum. But then, is the Big Bad World so bad as
one may at first have thought? It’s quite possible that people in Big Bad World aren’t living in
abject poverty and misery, but instead have lives similar those of many affluent people living
in rich, developed countries today.

Similarly, it’s difficult to imagine what it would be like to live an extremely happy life,
containing much more happiness than our lives do now. It could be that the gap between a
barely-worthwhile life and the happiest life possible is quite small.

Have more kids!

We have an obligation to go on with humanity, as long as we can, and as long as we create
future individuals who live lives worth living. Procreative decisions are moral decisions, and
we ought to see to it that, by our procreative decisions, we maximize the sum total of
happiness. The popular idea that we may do as we see fit when we conceive children, as
long as there is no one there who can make a legitimate complaint against us, is mistaken.
We ought to take all easy measures to procreate, such as signing up for sperm banks,
having another child when we can take care of it, and so forth. Of course, we should see to it
that we do not by our procreative choices make existing lives worth not living nor make lives
worth not living. In the individual case, it is hard to know where to draw the line. But in many
cases, having more kids is clearly better.

Torbjörn Tännsjö is Professor of Practical Philosophy at Stockholm University. He has
published extensively in moral philosophy, political philosophy and applied ethics. Among his
most recent books are Understanding Ethics, 3rd edition (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2013) and Taking Life: Three Theories on the Ethics of Killing (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2015), both available in the US from Oxford University Press. This article
draws on a chapter in Taking Life.


http://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/you-should-have-kids-00000003.pdf



After inquiring about its status after a period of silence, Prof. Tannsjo received the following from Mr. Matthews:

Afraid I have to be the bearer of bad news, Torbjörn. I ran the piece by some other editors and they weren't comfortable running it; I think the concern is that people will misinterpret it as implying opposition to abortion rights and birth control, which, while I know it's not your intent, is a real concern.

I'm sorry to waste your time; I really am a big fan of your work and appreciate your willingness to work with me.

As Prof. Tannsjo remarked to me this sorry affair illustrates "how sensitive abstract philosophical reasoning sometimes is"--and also, I might add, how difficult it is to translate it for a mass audience which apparently is more concerned with taking the "correct" view than with the reasoning.



http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/08/so-much-for-trying-to-bring-philosophy-to-the-public.html

[1715085205]

1715085205

[1715085205]

1715085205

[1715085205]

1715085205

[1715085205]

1715085205

[username18333]

You should [not] have kids. Not because it’s fun, or rewarding, or in your evolutionary self-interest.

You should [not] have kids because it’s your [ethical] duty to [not] do so.

My argument is simple. Most people live lives that are, on net, happy. For them to never exist, then, would be to deny them that happiness. And because I think we have a moral duty to m[in]imize the amount of happiness in the world, that means that we all have an obligation to make the world as [un]populated as can be.

[...]

"[E]volutionary self-interest" (Tännsjö) renders the above absurd and, thus, its source material.

[neoneros]

You should [not] have kids. Not because it’s fun, or rewarding, or in your evolutionary self-interest.

You should [not] have kids because it’s your [ethical] duty to [not] do so.

My argument is simple. Most people live lives that are, on net, happy. For them to never exist, then, would be to deny them that happiness. And because I think we have a moral duty to m[in]imize the amount of happiness in the world, that means that we all have an obligation to make the world as [un]populated as can be.

[...]

"[E]volutionary self-interest" (Tännsjö) renders the above absurd and, thus, its source material.

You cannot deny someone something if that someone does not exits, the same as he states, that same someone cannot complain about it being born twenty years too early, it is a contradiction. His piece has too many holes, that is why I would not have published it, not the majority of readers might be worried about them misinterpreting the thoughts.

the public does not want philosophy, there a just too few people interested in this level of thought and abstract thinking is not for the masses. You can see it in the media whenever a philosopher is on a panel or interview, it are always the ones that provide very simplistic ideas and appeal to the mass audiences, not the ones that truly digg deep into the big questions and trying to put abstraction upon abstraction.

[Wilikon]

You should [not] have kids. Not because it’s fun, or rewarding, or in your evolutionary self-interest.

You should [not] have kids because it’s your [ethical] duty to [not] do so.

My argument is simple. Most people live lives that are, on net, happy. For them to never exist, then, would be to deny them that happiness. And because I think we have a moral duty to m[in]imize the amount of happiness in the world, that means that we all have an obligation to make the world as [un]populated as can be.

[...]

"[E]volutionary self-interest" (Tännsjö) renders the above absurd and, thus, its source material.

You cannot deny someone something if that someone does not exits, the same as he states, that same someone cannot complain about it being born twenty years too early, it is a contradiction. His piece has too many holes, that is why I would not have published it, not the majority of readers might be worried about them misinterpreting the thoughts.

the public does not want philosophy, there a just too few people interested in this level of thought and abstract thinking is not for the masses. You can see it in the media whenever a philosopher is on a panel or interview, it are always the ones that provide very simplistic ideas and appeal to the mass audiences, not the ones that truly digg deep into the big questions and trying to put abstraction upon abstraction.

Maybe this media is not the best vector to explain Nietzsche in 140 characters or less...

[neoneros]

Maybe this media is not the best vector to explain Nietzsche in 140 characters or less...

Abstract thinking can fit nicely within 140 characters, but can the majority of the audience grasp the abstraction of the message? I think not.

[SubversiveTech]

I think the argument is weak.

"Have more kids" okay, let's fuck that womb up. Ten, Twenty, Thirty, Cmon' hunny you can do one more. The paper told us to.

[neoneros]

I think the argument is weak.

"Have more kids" okay, let's fuck that womb up. Ten, Twenty, Thirty, Cmon' hunny you can do one more. The paper told us to.

That is where the discussion is about, that abstract philosopical debates are often very impractical or seemingly illogical, counter intuitive, it is a mental exercise/experiment.

[PaoloSerBit]

We can't expect everyone to be a philosopher, it's always been a kingdom of few. The most of us go through our lives without much thinking  

[ObscureBean]

I'm sorry but... wat  
Abstract reasoning? Where?? This is the kind of speech I imagine was trending back in 60's and 70's when the world was all pink and Shrek. Don't get me wrong, his 'piece' has a purpose, it may be a very crude attempt at 'harmonic reinforcement' but it is still in line with the big picture. I'm not at all surprised that they refused to publish it, his text is way too naive and blunt, even for philosophy.


EDIT - "After inquiring about its status after a period of silence..." Sorry couldn't resist, this cracked me up so bad 

[Wilikon]

I'm sorry but... wat  
Abstract reasoning? Where?? This is the kind of speech I imagine was trending back in 60's and 70's when the world was all pink and Shrek. Don't get me wrong, his 'piece' has a purpose, it may be a very crude attempt at 'harmonic reinforcement' but it is still in line with the big picture. I'm not at all surprised that they refused to publish it, his text is way too naive and blunt, even for philosophy.


EDIT - "After inquiring about its status after a period of silence..." Sorry couldn't resist, this cracked me up so bad 

I must have missed that world...

[RealBitcoin]

Reality shows and crappy comedy shows get more view/day than the entire philosophical / intellectual sphere in a decade.

People are dumb, ignorant, lazy ,emotional driven monkeys, they were never interested in intellectual debates, they always do things out of instinct and emotions.

Humanity is going down the toilet, i`m sorry but this race will go extinct in a thousand years if this path continues.


It seems to me that with television and internet people have become the dumbest of all time. Even the illiterate middle-age person was more wise and rational than the current braindead monkeys.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Reality shows and crappy comedy shows get more view/day than the entire philosophical / intellectual sphere in a decade.

People are dumb, ignorant, lazy ,emotional driven monkeys, they were never interested in intellectual debates, they always do things out of instinct and emotions.

Humanity is going down the toilet, i`m sorry but this race will go extinct in a thousand years if this path continues.


It seems to me that with television and internet people have become the dumbest of all time. Even the illiterate middle-age person was more wise and rational than the current braindead monkeys.

I agree with all that.

But I also believe it's on purpose, and there are people out there who think the world is over populated and want to thin the herd. So they're doing that. It's certainly not surprising the article got shut down.

[Wilikon]

Reality shows and crappy comedy shows get more view/day than the entire philosophical / intellectual sphere in a decade.

People are dumb, ignorant, lazy ,emotional driven monkeys, they were never interested in intellectual debates, they always do things out of instinct and emotions.

Humanity is going down the toilet, i`m sorry but this race will go extinct in a thousand years if this path continues.


It seems to me that with television and internet people have become the dumbest of all time. Even the illiterate middle-age person was more wise and rational than the current braindead monkeys.

I agree with all that.

But I also believe it's on purpose, and there are people out there who think the world is over populated and want to thin the herd. So they're doing that. It's certainly not surprising the article got shut down.

Hmm...

[RealBitcoin]

Reality shows and crappy comedy shows get more view/day than the entire philosophical / intellectual sphere in a decade.

People are dumb, ignorant, lazy ,emotional driven monkeys, they were never interested in intellectual debates, they always do things out of instinct and emotions.

Humanity is going down the toilet, i`m sorry but this race will go extinct in a thousand years if this path continues.


It seems to me that with television and internet people have become the dumbest of all time. Even the illiterate middle-age person was more wise and rational than the current braindead monkeys.

I agree with all that.

But I also believe it's on purpose, and there are people out there who think the world is over populated and want to thin the herd. So they're doing that. It's certainly not surprising the article got shut down.

I think there are 2 types of elites.

1) Who want to control and manipulate the herd. The bigger the herd the more power they have.
2) Those who want to reduce the herds size to a smaller level to control them better.

The question is which elite will become more dominant?

[Lethn]

It's a constant problem in universities now, dissent is always crushed, no matter what form it is, I might not agree with this particular guy because I think our population is exploding and we shouldn't be bringing kids into this world unless we can afford it. However you have people who simply talk about free speech and expression and perfectly sane people like this feminist called Christina Hoff Sommers who you may have heard about who are talking about perfectly rational things and then actually being attacked for it.

Universities now seem to be nothing more than recruitment and propaganda stations for various political ideologies instead of any real place of learning and debate.

[BADecker]

Muslims are often far more philosophical than Americans. After all, they often have more than one wife and lots of kids.

Come to think of it, Mormons fit this category, as well.

[Wilikon]

Muslims are often far more philosophical than Americans. After all, they often have more than one wife and lots of kids.

Come to think of it, Mormons fit this category, as well.

The Amish are the "greenest" people around, and yet they are never consulted regarding Global Warming...

 

[BADecker]

Muslims are often far more philosophical than Americans. After all, they often have more than one wife and lots of kids.

Come to think of it, Mormons fit this category, as well.

The Amish are the "greenest" people around, and yet they are never consulted regarding Global Warming...

 

Since the Amish drive around in horse and buggy, one would never know that they have a lot more money than most people. Is this what you mean by "greenest?" Most of them don't use modern things like computers and Internet. What are they going to do when the "green" collapses and they can't engage Bitcoin?

 

[RealBitcoin]

It's a constant problem in universities now, dissent is always crushed, no matter what form it is, I might not agree with this particular guy because I think our population is exploding and we shouldn't be bringing kids into this world unless we can afford it. However you have people who simply talk about free speech and expression and perfectly sane people like this feminist called Christina Hoff Sommers who you may have heard about who are talking about perfectly rational things and then actually being attacked for it.

Universities now seem to be nothing more than recruitment and propaganda stations for various political ideologies instead of any real place of learning and debate.

Well you have to realize that the universities are the most hypocritical institutions out there.

They promote democracy and individual rights and power separation, yet they work on a  fucking tyrranical model


You got 1 tyrant controlling 30-40 students, and the students do what they are told to. If they disobey they are failed, or kicked out of the university (atleast they are not put in a cage).

Very democratical what to say. You got 40 studends, yet none of the studends opinions ever matter, its only the egomanical professor that likes to rule is what matters isnt it?

[BADecker]

It's a constant problem in universities now, dissent is always crushed, no matter what form it is, I might not agree with this particular guy because I think our population is exploding and we shouldn't be bringing kids into this world unless we can afford it. However you have people who simply talk about free speech and expression and perfectly sane people like this feminist called Christina Hoff Sommers who you may have heard about who are talking about perfectly rational things and then actually being attacked for it.

Universities now seem to be nothing more than recruitment and propaganda stations for various political ideologies instead of any real place of learning and debate.

Well you have to realize that the universities are the most hypocritical institutions out there.

They promote democracy and individual rights and power separation, yet they work on a  fucking tyrranical model


You got 1 tyrant controlling 30-40 students, and the students do what they are told to. If they disobey they are failed, or kicked out of the university (atleast they are not put in a cage).

Very democratical what to say. You got 40 studends, yet none of the studends opinions ever matter, its only the egomanical professor that likes to rule is what matters isnt it?

Regarding students, maybe it is time to start a university pre-school. We would teach the students how to compartmentalize their brains and minds to separate the prof's egomaniacal attitudes and teachings from potential or actual reality.

In other words, the students would be taught to question everything, but only express the questions to the prof that he would allow, and only use complete humility in questioning. Then, after class, to search out the real answers, especially to the answers the prof gives.

Of course, all the students would have to attend such a pre-school with false identities. After all, universities wouldn't let them in after such training.

If all else failed, these students could get a job with government, as sleeper agents overseas. After all, such compartmentalization of mind is exactly what sleeper agents have a knack for.