Giving birth to a child: what can be immoral in this?

“The Risk of a Lifetime” is the title of a book by the American philosopher Rivka Weinberg, published in early December.¹. And the author considers human life itself to be this risk. By giving birth to a child, we not only open the way for him to the delight and awe of first love, the happiness of May nightingale nights and the unique beauty of sunsets and sunrises. Just as much, we burden him with the incalculable risks and hardships of human existence. And Rivka Weinberg offers nothing less than to weigh the pros and cons before deciding to procreate.

Read more:

• 5 Reasons Why Women Decide Not to Have Children

genes and money

In other situations, it is quite easy to do this, and here the opinion of the philosopher coincides with the mindset of society and the trends in the development of science. If a person suffers from a serious, inherited disease, then the life of his child, filled with pain and suffering, limited by the walls of a hospital ward, can hardly be called the highest gift. And the growing popularity of genetic tests fully confirms the opinion of Rivka Weinberg: such a risk is excessive, and the birth of children in this case should be avoided.

Much more controversial are the thoughts of the author of the book about the economic factors that should be taken into account when deciding on the birth of a child. Is parental unemployment a risk factor for future children – asks, for example, a philosopher. And the answer is yes, of course it is. However, the absence of work can be a purely temporary circumstance. And in itself does not expose children to undue risks. It is a completely different matter – hopeless, humiliating poverty, a way out of which there is no and is not foreseen. The likelihood that parents will “inherit” this same poverty to their children is too high. The lack of clean water, the most essential food and even minimal medical care is already an excessive risk. And Rivka Weinberg is convinced that the birth of children by people living in such conditions is irresponsible and immoral.

Read more:

• Who has the right to have a child

“The world is not a fun party”

Paying tribute to the courage of the philosopher, who speaks so categorically on such delicate topics, one cannot but say that the author’s approach is vulnerable – at least from the same economic point of view. People living in poverty rely heavily on the help of their children. And the absence of the younger generation in poor countries can only aggravate an already difficult situation and lead many states to complete collapse.

However, Rivka Weinberg emphasizes that the business of philosophy is to raise moral and ethical questions, and not to offer practical ways to solve them. However, he does not give up his thoughts. “Of course, the simplest thing to say is that everyone has the right to give birth, since any other approach leads to inequality,” she commented on her book. – The problem, however, is that this answer not only does not reduce inequality, but increases it. To give birth to new generations doomed to humiliating poverty is definitely not the best way to overcome it.².

On the other hand, Rivka Weinberg also does not really believe in the need to actively “be fruitful and multiply” for wealthy and successful people. In her opinion, the risks to which children in large, albeit wealthy, families are exposed are also very high. She believes that with each new child, it becomes increasingly difficult for parents to fully engage in a relationship with him. And the lack of this involvement leads to the fact that children are deprived of the necessary care and love. Growing up, such children often feel unwanted – and the sad psychological consequences of this feeling are all too well known today.

“I don’t think at all that there are any higher considerations that would encourage us to multiply with all our might in order to make this world a more beautiful place,” Rivka Weinberg polemically observes. “For what reason?” The world is not a fun party that everyone must attend. And I say this out of concern for the interests of those who live today and those who will live tomorrow.”

Read more:

• Children take everything and give nothing in return. Except happiness

Is the meaning of the family under threat?

Surely the reaction to the book “The Risk of a Lifetime” will be violent. In the end, the continuation of the family for centuries was considered one of the main meanings of human life and the institution of the family. So the indignation of religious critics is quite predictable. Let us recall, however, that in 1931 the great Russian philosopher (and specifically a religious philosopher) Nikolai Berdyaev wrote: “Ethics, based on the consciousness of the dignity of the individual and the spirit, must recognize as immoral the union of a man and a woman, which has set itself the exclusive goal of procreation, childbearing. This is the transfer of the principle of cattle breeding to human relations. The purpose and meaning of the union of a man and a woman lies not in the race and not in society, but in the individual, in her striving for the fullness and integrity of life, for eternity. Psychologically, the doctrine that sees the purpose and meaning of marital sexual union in childbearing and procreation should be recognized as untenable”³.

¹ R. Weinberg «The Risk of a Lifetime» (Oxford University Press, 2015).

² For more details, see the Quarz portal, qz.com

³ N. Berdyaev “On the appointment of a person” (AST, 2010).