Philosophy In Action All the ideas and discussions
4 votes Vote

Should a person forgo having children to avoid the risk of needing welfare?

I know that accepting government welfare is wrong: it's a kind of loot stolen from taxpayers. For a person to accept welfare is damaging to his life and happiness. However, I would like children, but in today's economy, particularly with my spouse's frequent job turnover, I'm not sure that's possible without ever relying on welfare. If I had children, I don't know if I would be able to resist becoming a looter to care for them. What if the only alternative is for the state to take charge of them? I couldn't allow that. Wouldn't accepting welfare be better than that?

Jenny , 27.06.2013, 05:12
Idea status: completed

Comments

DianaHsieh, 03.07.2013, 21:40
Here's the original question:

What lengths are rational to avoid being a looter?

If your personal philosophy recognizes looting/ welfare / is the product of theft and is wrong and does not lead to a happy life, but merely existence, where do you draw the line? I would like children, but in today's economy and my spouse's frequent job turnover - is it irrational, when I don't know if I would be able to resist becoming a looter to care for them? I think it's rational to find another home, even if permanent, for children if the parents unable to provide for them and teach them, rather than become a looter - but that doesn't mean I would have the ability (will power) to do so. And what if the state takes them anyway if I refuse to be a looter and don't live at their sanctioned standard of living?
Reply

Leave a comment