Reproduction is not a rational choice

Introduction Thank you for submitting your R2 arguments, PRO. Counters Directly Effecting Someone Else’s Life My decision to get a job, move into a new place, move out of my parent’s home, or even go to college all directly affect someone else’s lives (that of my parent’s, my friends, other students) in a way that we cannot know for certain, yet these decisions can still be rational, per the criteria I explicated, to which PRO had no objections. Perhaps someone else was prevented from having a place of their own because I’ve moved into this new place. Since, I can’t know for sure, this (at least on PRO’s criteria) would be irrational. Even if we add the caveat that the gambling must affect someone else, that still makes all long-term decisions (buying a new house, buying a new car, changing careers, etc), irrational since we necessarily cannot know anything about the lives of the people we are affecting. My objection still stands: PRO’s criterion is still too broad. From experience (which PRO relies heavily upon), we can know, with a high degree of confidence, that the situation of the parents generally determines the situation of the child. While we cannot know a priori (from reason alone) how that child’s life will be, we can know a posteriori (from experience) how that child’s life will likely be. If I have a good life, and if I love my child enough to pass my resources on to them, my child will likely have a good life, as well, so long as they are in need of my support. If I am financial stable, of sound mind and body, and in a stable relationship, the child is more likely to have a life with less suffering than if I were poor, jobless, mentally unwell, and a single parent. The same evidence (induction) that makes the decision to go to the grocery store rational makes my decision to have children rational. In other words, we can know at least some things about that person’s life, and can reason inductively regarding the effects our decisions might have on them. Every child is different, and every parent’s situation is different, but, in general, we understand that certain facts about the lives’ of the parents lead to certain facts about the life of the child. As such, we have some grounds for making decisions which affect that person’s life. Irrational Decisions that Affect only Me I used an example earlier regarding paying a bill and going rock climbing. Cell phones are of practical use. They serve as a communication hub, for phone calls, email, and social networks, as well as personal assists, for appointments and contacts. If I choose, rather than paying my bill, to go rock climbing, this would be irrational, given the criteria I laid out in the previous round. I know that (1) I only have enough money for one or the other, (2) my phone has more long term use than rock climbing, (3) there are alternative exercises to rock climbing, (4) my service will be suspended due to non-payment and (5) I will have to spend more money to turn my service back on. These are the factors to be considered. These are also motivating prudent reasons. Now, should I still choose to go rock-climbing, even if I need phone service, I am being irrational. Unless I am in a situation where I have absolutely no need for a cell phone, paying my cell phone bill is the rational option of the two. This decision affects only me, yet is still irrational. Positive ArgumentsArgument from Criteria A1. A decision D is rational if and only if there are motivating prudent reasons for D. (From Rational Choice Criteria) P1. Reproduction is rational if and only if there are motivating prudent reasons for it (identity) P2. There are motivating prudent reasons for reproduction for some people. Ergo, Reproduction is rational for some people. (P2, P3, modus ponens) The only premise to be defended here is P2. PRO has already agreed to A1, and P1 is simply an instantiation thereof. Some couples are in the following situation: Both desire children. They are financially stable as a couple. They are emotionally stable as individuals. They are in a stable relationship. Each is aware of the requirements of parenthood. Each has experience with children. They are in a committed relationship. Circumstances are such that the couple can adequately deal with the impact a child would have on their lives. Additionally, there is a higher likelihood, in this situation, that the child will have a net positive life, at least while under the care of his/her parents. However, even if this were the case, the fact that the couple desires to have children serves to motivate that course of action. It is the conjunction of this desire, with the above factors that serves to create a MPR for this couple to have children. My Criteria over PRO’s criteria The criteria I explicated in Round 2 are, as I stated, generally applicable to any decision, whether long-term or short term. These criteria are specific enough to make some decisions rational and other decisions irrational, yet general enough not to rule out an entire class of decisions from rationality or make necessary the rationality of another class of decisions. In other words, it is usable on a strictly case-by-case basis, should there be a need for this. Additionally, PRO has no objections to it. On the other hand, PRO’s criteria still precludes the rationality of long-term decisions. I say this because the decision to marry is life-altering in much the same way having children is. Being husband and wife is very different from being girlfriend and boyfriend or dating. We cannot know how that decision will affect someone, even if we do have some idea about their lives. Likewise, my decision to buy a new house in a new neighborhood is life-altering. I could, very well, end up staying in that same house until my death. PRO has not explicitly stated any criteria for rational decision making, but it seems that, roughly, the criterion is foreknowledge of effect. That is, if you cannot know the effects of a decision d on others, then d is irrational. Given PRO’s arguments thus far, this seems plausible, though possibly in error. Closing While PRO might have saved some decisions from irrationality, my objection still stands. There is a class of decisions (of which marriage, house-purchasing, and reproduction are members) which is necessarily irrational, without any evaluation whatsoever. Such decisions are (1) life-altering, (2) unprecedented in one’s life (generally), and (3) other-affecting. Given PRO’s arguments thus far, it would seem that these are the characteristics which makes reproduction irrational. Further, there are some decisions which are irrational by PRO’s criteria, but rational by criteria PRO finds agreeable. On what basis does PRO reject my criteria for the specific case of long-term/life-altering decisions? I look forward to PRO’s responses.