This most certainly should not be the last generation!

Although my official, listed duty is news, I found this article by Peter Singer (published in the New York Times) irresistible. It’s title? “Should This Be the Last Generation?”  Due to the nature of this blog, I pursued this article, finding it to be well-written and thought-provoking.  Beyond this, however, the opinion piece was brilliantly succeeded by an equally thought-provoking list of questions for the readers to respond to in the comments section (I’ve included it at the end of this post).

The first two questions, as far as I understand them, deal with the general question “does the probable quality of life (economically, emotionally, and physically) of a child have any bearing on whether that child should be brought into existence?” This question is really quite interesting, especially in that it does not bring into question the personhood of the fetus but rather extends to wherever it is that the child is brought into existence.  In fact, Peter Singer does not mention abortion at all in his article, and instead uses sterilization as his method for preventing reproduction.

To answer this question, it is profitable to ask another question: “why should it?”  But let me explain—essentially what I mean is this: if the child’s existence is temporal (confined to its life in the physical world) then the purpose for its existence is intrinsically connected to the physical world and its probable quality of life has definite bearing on whether the child should be brought into existence.  This conclusion, however, does not entirely answer the title question (“Should This Be the Last Generation?”), as one might reasonably claim that if the conditions are promising, then it would not be wrong to bring a child into existence, as the joy would outweigh the suffering.  It does, however, lean towards a positive answer (based on our general experiences with existence).

There is, though, another potential scenario, where the child’s existence is not temporal, and has an eternal, non-physical aspect.  In this case, the majority of the child’s existence is not in the material world, and suffering in the physical stage of life would have no bearing on whether the child should be brought into existence, as the purpose for it’s existence is most certainly related to it’s eternal, non-physical stage of existence.  Within a Biblical worldview, this scenario is enlarged to include details of this second stage, and it is clear that reproduction is commanded.  In the basic scenario, no definite answer to the title question is given, just as with the materialistic scenario; however, it embarks on a completely different path, leaning towards a negative answer to the title question.

The next question is rather specific, but hints at the general question, “What makes life worth living?” Peter Singer makes the assumption in his article that life is most worth living when there is as little suffering as possible. I would make the claim that life is most worth living when the greatest possible level of fulfillment is achieved.  In our first scenario, Singer’s condition of minimal suffering coincides with my requisite of fulfillment, as fulfillment in this scenario is found in optimizing one’s interaction with the physical world, and thus minimizing suffering.  Because of this condition, it appears that an answer to the title question is within reach.  If this were to be the last generation (or if the entirely non-sentient world described in Singer’s next question were achieved) then all suffering would be eliminated, so it would seem that the answer from this scenario is a yes.

Within our second scenario, purpose, and therefore fulfillment, is tied intrinsically to the eternal.  The Biblical worldview is a subset of this scenario, and the purpose for our existence is not tied to our desires, but rather to the Creator God.  In this sub-scenario, a firmly negative answer is given to the title question; in the general scenario, however, the answer is not as clear.  With existence eternal, but God removed, this is little more than an expansion of the first scenario, and when balanced with the answer to the previous question, provides only a slightly negative answer.

Why should this concern those of a pro-life persuasion?  Isn’t this all just esoteric fluff?  Actually, it isn’t.  If one is truly committed to life and not just opposed to its destruction, then their answer to Peter Singer’s question must always be a resolute “no.”  But rather than just tell you in about 10 words that Peter Singer wrote a neat article and that you should say “no,” I thought it valuable to explore the philosophical reasons behind the pro-life position, using the excellent questions provided at the end of Peter Singer’s opinion piece.  You can read this list below.

“If a child is likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing the child into existence?

If a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life, is that a reason for bringing the child into existence?

Is life worth living, for most people in developed nations today?

Is a world with people in it better than a world with no sentient beings at all?

Would it be wrong for us all to agree not to have children, so that we would be the last generation on Earth?”