preview

The Immorality Of Having Children By Stuart Rachels

Better Essays
The paper, “The Immorality of Having Children”, by Stuart Rachels provides insight as to why it is wrong to raise children by supporting the Famine Relief Argument. Rachels argues that the cost of raising a child today, over two-hundred thousand, is so staggering that it would be better spent on donations towards famine relief projects. Throughout the paper, Rachels provides substantial arguments that emphasize the point that having children is the biggest decision that someone will ever make in their life rather than what to believe or whether to get married, and the decision should not be taken lightly. All the arguments presented are persuasive, but the argument is flawed overall because it never takes into account the importance of…show more content…
Rather, Rachels opposes both the idea parenthood as well as accusing parents of their misjudgments.(Rachels, 572) This shows the awareness that Rachels has in objectively challenging the current stance that couples must have a child together. Altogether, Rachels has provided a strong paper that initially seems very convincing, but when taking a deeper look, one finds that there are several flaws in his argument. One of the major opponents to Rachels argument is Peter Singer. Singer writes about how it seems unfair for somebody to donate more than another person who may be in a similar situation. (Singer, 233) For example, if someone was considering having a child and were financially secure enough to provide for the child, Rachels would argue that the money they would spend on the child would be better used if it were donated to the famine relief charities. On the other hand, if an individual or couple were not planning on having a child, but rather wanted to not have children, they too would be required to give the same amount of money to the famine relief charities, but why would they be required to give the money away if they were not planning on having a child? So the initially strong argument provided by Rachels is weakened because there was little to no consideration given towards the population who may not want to have children.
Get Access