I realize that creating healthy fertility rates through government actions is complicated business. But it’s worth trying to figure out. A lot of it probably has to do with factors in the broader social climate beyond just financial support. I don’t know if it’s urbanization or materialism or declining real salaries or what that’s causing us to have fewer and fewer children in the developed world, but whatever it is, it has me concerned about the long-term stability and prosperity of our society.]]>
endless, I don’t know about you, but I consider early childrearing to carry its own sacrifices. There’s a reason why is isn’t very fashionable anymore.]]>
With respect to the Smugs and the Freeloaders it becomes readily apparent that under the most reasonable scenarios the Freeloaders are making a sub-optimal choice for society and therefore their decision is unethical.
I must have missed where this was determined. You called it a wash. And that was assuming that the Freeloaders receive $25k per year in government assistance. But if they don’t receive a PV of $107k in government assistance more than the Smugs, then their decision is “more optimal” and, by your definition, the Smugs’ decision to put off childbirth burdens society and they’re the unethical ones.
I think it’s best not to make moral judgments based on how a given choice affects the NPV of government receipts over the long run.]]>
I think it depends on what year and what GA on the delay family question. Its pretty fair to say that there is a body of GA quotes that would back up my post. One big question is how current is the advice………
I personally think that things are more nuanced then my post suggested.]]>
The problem is that your definition of “burden” is meaningless. The burden arises when choices we make result in suboptimal outcomes. With respect to the Smugs and the Freeloaders it becomes readily apparent that under the most reasonable scenarios the Freeloaders are making a sub-optimal choice for society and therefore their decision is unethical. To tie that reasoning back to the Gospel, we’re taught that we will be judged based on our capacity for growth. We’re also taught that not everyone comes to earth with the same capacity. If we knowingly make suboptimal decisions here on earth then we’ll be judged accordingly.
Further you quip, “They have both temporarily sacrificed pursuing one good for the sake of another good.” Actually, that statement is completely misleading unless you attribute moral value to the absolute accumulation of wealth. The Smugs are sacrificing six years of joy they might experience from having children earlier. The Freeloaders are not making an equivalent sacrafice. In fact they are hoisting a sacrafice onto the rest of society by making a suboptimal decision. Where is it written that it is moral to force others to bear your own burdens?
I think you set up a false dichotomy my eliminating a vital component of the counsel to avoid delaying reproduction after marriage. I think the counsel falls more in line with warning couples not to unnecessarily delay having children. I think the ability to afford them on one’s own is a necessary condition to making the decision to reproduce.]]>
only way this fits into that debate is if one judges the Freeloaders as immoral on the basis that they burden society.
A reasonable argument could be made, however, that “burden society” includes driving up the costs of WIC and Medicare.]]>