Child-rearing fallacy?

[pjkeeley]

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a fallacy, but one thing that frustrates me that appears frequently in arguments on almost every subject is the assertion that, because a person has children or claims to care deeply about children, he or she is somehow in a better position to argue than someone who hasn't or doesn't.

First of all, let's remember that we are philosophers, and that therefore we are guided by reason. This is not to say we must act as though we are emotionless automatons, but rather that our emotions are subject to reasoned analysis just like anything else, and if our emotions are to be included in philosophical discussions they must be treated no differently than any other reasoned assertion. To give emotional or personal asides more weight than rational inquiry by default makes no sense; a philosopher must subject both to the same standards that would be applied to any kind of thought. In philosophy, everything is open to be examined, questioned, defended or refuted regardless of the power with which our feelings draw us to certain conclusions.

First, I dispute the notion that having children provides some sort of advantageous philosophical insight that the rest of us are blind to. I have no doubt that having children results in a massive change of perspective, and if it brings you to think more about the ernormity of life then I'm sure that in that respect you are better off. But unless those immense feelings lead to some sort of observation or analysis that can be subject to reason and rational enquiry, what use are they in a philosophical setting?

Moreover, how exactly does caring more about children provide any kind of advantage in philosophical debate? It seems to me to be just another bias to burden the inquiring mind. It is argued that those who have children have more stake in the future than those without. But figuring out how to steer humanity towards a better future is something almost everyone thinks about. The future is a vast unknowable fog. Having children, it seems to me, only makes a person more cautious and narrow-minded with regard to the future; it is their kids whose future they have in mind, and they are burdened by thinking their children are somehow more important than other serious considerations about our present as well as our future.

I am often told, after arguing away a great deal of irrational and irrelevant claims, that if I only had children I would understand (as if there is anything to understand about irrational, illconceived arguments). I certainly hope not. If I do one day have children I hope I can have the strength of mind and the courage not to to let my feelings for them get the better of my ability to reason soundly and continue to think philosophically, by which I mean in a manner in which nothing is immune from questioning and nothing gets in the way of my search for truth.

[Belinda]

Not guilty!Very annoying, I agree. I have sons and grandkids and I would never argue from such a small and unregulated sample.
_________________
Socialist

[Scott]

pjkeeley, I also disagree with the notion that having children provides some sort of advantageous philosophical insight that the rest of us are blind to. And I also think that caring more about children does not provide any kind of advantage in philosophical debate. It is usually an exmaple of the fallcy of appeal to emotion and/or the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi).

However, I think it is important to note that science and logic are useless without emotion. Ultimately, when determining what course of action is preferable, one must weigh the believed emotional consequences against the emotional benefits. In other words, it must be asked, which course of action will make one happier? This is when logic and science comes in--to help us figure out which course of action will lead to the desired emotional outcome.

Usually, when people tell us not to let emotions cloud are judgment or tell us to be rational not emotional, they mean to not let self-destructive instincts or short-term emotions cause us to make decisions that will hinder our achievement of long-term, emotion-based goals. For instance, one may be 'logical' in the sense that they choose not to eat a delicious cake today which would provide some immediate happiness so that they can stay in shape which provides more happiness in the long run. In another example, a person may choose to ignore their fear of needles by using science and logic to conclude that their fear of becoming terminally ill and desire to live trumps their fear of needles and desire not to be poked when they realize getting a shot will save their life.

In this sense, it can be very important to a discussion to admit one's personal opinions, emotions and feelings. They are important and not fallacious to bring up when they actually effect the conclusion. For instance, whether or not it is desirable to drink alcohol may be determined in part by how much emotional pleasure one gets from alcohol and whether or not one is an alcoholic.

As for the example in the OP, if the discussion is about 'whether or not a certain policy is desirable,' pointing out the proposed policy's effect on children and pointing out that one cares about children or wants harm to happen to children would not only be relevant but would an essential part of a rational discussion about the topic.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[lifegazer]

[Belinda]

But it's no big deal for a fertile and irresponsible woman to have loads of kids. It is more enlightening to be a responsible adoptive parent or fosterer or a teacher for having some insight into children and their maturation or whatever, than to be an irresponsible or psychopathic natural parent.Lifegazer said 'a full and rich life' and I do think that a full and rich life is one that involves feeling responses to other people. However, there are lots of people besides one's own offspring.

However when an appraisal of some behvioural research is in question, the fact that the researcher has experience of children will not help the objectivity of the result, because there may be bias and the sample is too small.

But that is science, not philosophy . I think that pjkeeley's point is that philosophical investigation sometimes needs objective evidence just as scinetific enquirey does.

A robot cannot do philosophy because a robot doesn't know what it's like to be affected by something or someone else.It would not know what it was talking about. Knowing what it's like to be affected by full subjective consciousness is to be more human to the degree that one is affected by other humans.I don't thyink there is anything especially complex about children as compared with the complexity of adults.
_________________
Socialist

[athena]

When you become a parent you do learn things you would not otherwise learn. This does not make a person fit to be a certified brain surgeon, nor qualify anyone to debate political philosophy. However, on the subject of human nature, being a parent is a valuable experience giving us insight into our nature that one does not otherwise have. I should stress, this is not just about understanding children, but understanding oneself and other parents. Having kids gives us a different perspective on why our parents did what they did.

[lifegazer]

[Belinda]

[athena]

The question about robots doing meaningful philosophy is interesting. There is this theory that God could not know everything, and could not be wise, without the physical form necessary for experience. It is our feelings and our experience as feeling beings, that gives us a since of meaning, and then wisdom. You could memorize a whole encyclopedia, and fill your head with facts, but without experience those facts have no meaning.

Our physical, feeling being is essential to a sense of meaning, and in our later years we enjoy enlightenment and realizations that are not possible for the young. You can't know the difference until you experience it.

Just as you can't know what it is like to be a soldier in Iraq and faced with killing a whole family, or being under fire in a foreign land, or being locked up in prison for 5 years, or carrying a baby in the womb, and going through the hormonal cycles a woman experiences. On and on- facts are not equal to having a sense of meaning.

The exclusion of women from philosophy until recently means past philosophy is lacking in an important point of view.

[Isidorus]

I have been told that getting married (ie. having a +/- permanent partner) makes one more selfish and less involved with others. This is probably intensified if one has children. I have often observed parents and kids interact, noting how seemingly complete their lives seem to be, with only a marginal, or peripheral involvment with others. I do not have kids of my own (surprise), but i do feel intense emotions toward them and although i am a male, i think i am capable of feelig emotions of either sex in this regard. Perhaps this is presumptuous of me. In any case, i believe that one has to experience love for children and the love of children in order to experience the completeness of life (and bliss) on this particular planet.

[pjkeeley]