QuestionsShould we have children?Why have children? It is that decision which needs justifying
Should we have children?Neither duty nor fault

Why have children? It is that decision which needs justifying

Why have children?; the burden of proof

Christine Overall Canadian feminist philosopher: it is the decision to have a child, more than the decision not to, that needs justifying.
See profile
What it claims

Having a child is permissible when one has the good reason (the relationship), but there is neither a duty to have children nor a duty not to: it is a choice that needs reasons, not an obligation.

Why

Having a child creates a person and affects many people: it is this choice, not childlessness, that needs to be justified.

In short

"Why have children? It is that decision which needs justifying" is an argument by Christine Overall (Christine Overall, Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate (MIT Press, 2012)) on the question "Should we have children?" (answer: neither duty nor fault). Its claim: Having a child is permissible when one has the good reason (the relationship), but there is neither a duty to have children nor a duty not to: it is a choice that needs reasons, not an obligation. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P5). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 2 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Christine Overall, Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate (MIT Press, 2012)
Valid with an implicit premise

People without children are constantly asked why they have none, and parents almost never why they have them. Overall reverses the question: bringing a person into existence is a weighty moral decision, and it is that decision which needs reasons. She examines the usual reasons and finds few of them sound. Yet she concludes neither that one should avoid having children nor that one should have them: the best reason is to create a new loving relationship, and nobody has a duty to do so. Note: we could not read the book in full text (it is in copyright). This entry is a cautious paraphrase, with no quotation, based on the publisher's presentation and a review.

P1In our society, people are asked to justify not having children, but almost never to justify having them.
P2Deciding to have a child is a moral decision: it creates a person, commits years of life, and affects many other people. It is therefore that decision which needs justifying.
P3Most of the usual reasons (carrying on the family line, having someone for one's old age, fulfilling a duty, meeting an expectation, improving one's own happiness) do not hold up, or are ethically dubious.
P4The best reason is the relationship itself: creating with a child a new loving relationship (genetic, physical, psychological, moral), which is a good for the child and for the parents.
P5 · implicit premiseIf a sound reason exists, but no general obligation to have or not to have children is established, then having a child is permitted without being obligatory.
Therefore having a child is permissible when one has the good reason (the relationship), but there is neither a duty to have children nor a duty not to: it is a choice that needs reasons, not an obligation.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.
Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P5, the computer finds a situation where everything is true (the question is asymmetric, the usual reasons fail, the relationship is a good reason) and yet one has a duty not to have a child, because every birth is a harm.
Valid with P5, which bridges "a sound reason exists" and "permitted but not obligatory". Overall does not state it in a single sentence, but it is the shape of her thesis. To reject the argument, one must deny P3 (the usual reasons are better than she says), P4 (creating a relationship does not justify creating a person), or admit a duty (to society, or, conversely, to the child to be born).
Analogy. In a hall, people who do not dance are asked why they sit, never those who dance why they dance. Overall says: look at the dancers instead. Dancing is allowed, sometimes joyful, but it is not an obligation, and neither is sitting.

Objections

3

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

David Benatar 2006 · attacks the conclusion

The asymmetry between pleasure and pain shows that bringing someone into existence is always a harm: the absence of pain is good even if no one enjoys it, whereas the absence of pleasure is bad only for someone deprived of it. Even a loving relationship does not justify creating a person: one has a duty not to have children.

Overall replies
see the argument
Christine Overall 2012
Overall discusses antinatalism in her book. According to Scott McLemee's review, she argues that this philosophy often has misogynistic implications, and could even be read as supporting mandatory contraception or abortion, whereas the decision not to procreate must remain autonomous.
Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: is bringing someone into existence always a harm (Benatar), or can a loving relationship be a good reason (Overall)? Benatar himself does not defend coercion; what is discussed is what antinatalism implies for women. Our account rests on a summary of the book, not on its text.
P
Philip Longman 2004 · attacks the conclusion

When births fall too low, the population ages and shrinks, and pensions, health care and the economy suffer. Society therefore has an interest, and perhaps a collective duty, in people having children: it is not only a private matter.

Overall replies
Christine Overall 2012
According to McLemee's review, Overall rejects the idea of an obligation to reproduce, whether to the nation, to the community or by divine command, and insists on the right to decide about one's procreation autonomously.
Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: can a collective need (pensions, age balance) turn into a duty for each person? An open point, depending on what one is ready to impose on persons, and on other solutions (immigration, work organization). We have not read the details of the exchange.
Mencius 300 BC · attacks the conclusion

Among the failures of filial piety, having no descendants is the gravest: having a child is a duty to one's parents and ancestors.

no reply
see the argument
We have not yet found a direct reply by Overall in the texts.
The debate goes on (our summary) To our knowledge, Overall does not answer this passage of Mencius in our sources: she only rejects the idea of an obligation to procreate, including to the community (according to McLemee). Core disagreement: can a duty to the lineage override a person's choice?
Where the debate stands (our summary)Open point: we found no direct exchange between the two. The disagreement concerns the source of the duty (family and ancestors, or the person's freedom alone).