Unlimited children; If a moral [when practiced by all] makes bad things happen, is it an evil moral?

[Amorphos]

Unlimited children; If a moral [when practiced by all] makes bad things happen, is it an evil moral?

The other night I was watching ‘the other side’ [a religious debate show], and on it a jewish chap mentioned that he had 15 children, and that there is nothing wrong with it because god wants us to have as many children as we can.

If we all had 15 kids, then the world population would go up 7.5 times I.e. from 6 billion [6,790,062,216] to 45 billion in a single generation!
...Then in the following generation; 337.5 billion! etc, etc.

Estimates according to current trends…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

Now someone correct me if I am wrong, but the world simply cannot sustain that kind of population. If we all went by that moral and were peaceful etc [also abrahamic philosophy], there would be somewhere near 45 billion people all using up the earths resources and increasing pollution, there would eventually be mass starvation and civilisation would fall to its knees.

1. Maybe you disagree with some of the particulars here, but the basic idea is that we should be responsible in the amount of children we have [like most people are]. People should not have exhaustive amounts of children for ulterior motives be it religion or to get more benefits ~ or any other reason.

2. If a moral denotes such an expansion of the population then that moral is plainly WRONG!

I just wanted to point out no’s 2 because religious people always think they are right and that their religion is according to gods word. So I ask if gods word leads to evil, is that really an ethic a wise god would teach?

[Monarchist]

This is assuming that deeply religious people have babies because they believe that God wants them to "be fruitful and multiply". If that is the case in this theoretical situation, then the events on Earth wouldn't matter; everyone would be too focused on the next life. It's not technically immoral to let people starve as long as they are baptised (Christian) or circumsized (Jewish). After that, and if they keep strong in the faith they were christened into, they'd be more worried with getting to Heaven than saving lives on Earth.

Irony.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Oh that's just, as a brit chap would put it, poppycock. Yes, God wants us to have children, he loves children, children (usually) make you responsible... but then people like this guy go all-out and interpret it word-for-word and take it to mean they should have as many children as possible.

This is both illogical on the religious and just plain basic concepts. There is no way you can have that many children and not have problems within and out of the family. Not to mention the costs most sky-rocket. This isn't good for anyone. I mean look at the Octo-mom! If we were to interpret as this man has, shouldn't she be a saint of fertility?

No, N, o, No. This man is a little wonkers. I don't think this means it's an evil moral, children are the light of the world, I just think it's a misinterpreted and therefore malpracticed moral.

[Amorphos]

if they keep strong in the faith they were christened into, they'd be more worried with getting to Heaven than saving lives on Earth.

Yet the moral leads to a great human catastrophe irrespective of other factors, so the moral is wrong.

Its probably self contradicting too, as such an even would not be very goof for the earth, all animals would be eaten and the earth would be worn out by overuse trying to feed such populations.
____________

No, N, o, No. This man is a little wonkers. I don't think this means it's an evil moral, children are the light of the world, I just think it's a misinterpreted and therefore malpracticed moral

many people follow it, albeit to a lesser degree e.g. 7-8 children. the moral remains evil.

[Monarchist]

Yet the moral leads to a great human catastrophe irrespective of other factors, so the moral is wrong.

I don't see how it leads to a catastrophe. If all the children got into Heaven, their bodies wouldn't mean anything. It's the final condition of the soul which worries religious people; sure, we want to limit suffering while on Earth, but the prime goal is what comes after. A world population explosion of 345 billion people, all born to God-fearing parents, would ensure that everyone starves to death and goes to Heaven. Don't you want people to go to Heaven, you meanie?

[Arch-hereticK]

I don't see how it leads to a catastrophe. If all the children got into Heaven, their bodies wouldn't mean anything. It's the final condition of the soul which worries religious people; sure, we want to limit suffering while on Earth, but the prime goal is what comes after. A world population explosion of 345 billion people, all born to God-fearing parents, would ensure that everyone starves to death and goes to Heaven. Don't you want people to go to Heaven, you meanie?

But then everyone will starve in heaven, when will it end?

[Denny Crane!]

For something to be moral it has to be testable not just dictated so clearly this isn't moral.

[Denny Crane!]

Quez what are you saying constitutes a moral?

[Taiji]

God needs to send another prophet quick!

(I agree with the OP)

[Denny Crane!]

If there is to be a morality that can be accepted as anything but relative and thus meaningless there has to be some kind of objectivity relating to either a deity or a universal standard that is testable and objective.

[Amorphos]

If there is to be a morality that can be accepted as anything but relative and thus meaningless there has to be some kind of objectivity relating to either a deity or a universal standard that is testable and objective.

Its not relative if it is simple math, the universal standard is that if the moral is applied universally, it breaks itself and or causes ‘evil’ suffering etc in the world ~ which it demonstratably does.

[Denny Crane!]

Its not relative if it is simple math, the universal standard is that if the moral is applied universally, it breaks itself and or causes ‘evil’ suffering etc in the world ~ which it demonstratably does.

Then it is neccessarily immoral yes I would agree.

[Amorphos]

[Bovril]

To the OP:

I think you might be very interested in this essay by Jean Paul Satre, which adresses (and broadly supports) your point, as well as giving a nice outline of Satre's thought and response to critics. It really is a great read, and not too long:

Link

[Amorphos]

Thanks Bovril!

[Nietzsche]

Far be it for me to interject some sense into this discussion, but this is hardly the norm. Some people have children. Some have none. Still others have many. The average birthrate is just that an average. Do you have proof that this single act is increasing the birthrate across the board?

Finally, what difference does it make if this man can provide for his children? There are those that can't provide for the children they have. This man is providing for 15. I don't see how the free exercise of procreation is immoral. The arguments I see here aren't compelling in proof to the contrary. Quetz is using inaccurate and completely imaginary statistics to argue a specious point. It's sad that so many have fallen for the alarmist debate.

[Amorphos]

Far be it for me to interject some sense into this discussion, but this is hardly the norm. Some people have children. Some have none. Still others have many. The average birthrate is just that an average. Do you have proof that this single act is increasing the birthrate across the board?

that’s because the majority of people don’t go by the ethic, the point is that the ethic is wrong if universally applied. If its an absolute moral [which abrahamic morals tend to be] rather than relative, then this denotes that all people should adhere to it.

what difference does it make if this man can provide for his children?

The money it takes and more importantly the resources are not unlimited, what is given to one is often taken from another. If this man was moral he would have approx 2-4 children and give to the starving people across the world.

Quetz is using inaccurate and completely imaginary statistics to argue a specious point.

They are accurate according to the universal implementation of the ethic [that the ethic calls for]. The numbers change according to how many people have too many children [irrespective of religion]. The question is about the moral and its implications if utilised, if a moral is not used it is pointless, hence we have either an immoral ethic or a pointless one and variants thereof.

[Nietzsche]

that’s because the majority of people don’t go by the ethic, the point is that the ethic is wrong if universally applied. If its an absolute moral [which abrahamic morals tend to be] rather than relative, then this denotes that all people should adhere to it.

The money it takes and more importantly the resources are not unlimited, what is given to one is often taken from another. If this man was moral he would have approx 2-4 children and give to the starving people across the world.

They are accurate according to the universal implementation of the ethic [that the ethic calls for]. The numbers change according to how many people have too many children [irrespective of religion]. The question is about the moral and its implications if utilised, if a moral is not used it is pointless, hence we have either an immoral ethic or a pointless one and variants thereof.

I think people already do have as many as they can (Except in China of course... but I'll not say anything about that lest we drift off topic). I believe people are already exercising this ethic although I doubt they would consider it Abrahamic. Some are restricted by economics, others by temperament, still others by professional obligations, desire... etc. Thus, the implementation of this "ethic" is already being realized. I think your entire point is inauthentic. I think to consider this in a moral context is abusive. Having a child is not a moral act, it's biological. There are obvious human all too human principles involved, but morality is peripheral at best. To call a man immoral for having and providing for many children is absurd.

[Ummon]

Two words: space colonies.

[Monarchist]

Two words: space colonies.

That's the difference between secular liberals and religious conservatives. We want to use up the Earth, then colonize Mars. The secular Earth-worshipers want to destroy all progress and keep us here, trapped forever in our wish to be sensitive to our planet's "needs".

Of course, my previous comments about everyone on Earth dying and going to Heaven (or Hell) still stands. I'd prefer an apocalypse at the end of time to colonizing Mars. Still, the latter of the two is preferable to Earth-obsessed environmentalism. Sod the Earth; let's steal all of its resources and move to the Moon. It can't be that hard; after all, we are God's chosen He gave us the ingenuity and clarity of purpose and economy to do as we wish with His law, as long as we follow it. The next logical step is Mars!