While procreation is ubiquitous, attention to the ethical issues involved in creating children is relatively rare. In Debating Procreation, David Benatar and David Wasserman take opposing views on this important question. David Benatar argues for the anti-natalist view that it is always wrong to bring new people into existence. He argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm and that even if it were not always so, the risk of serious harm is sufficiently great to make procreation wrong. In addition to these "philanthropic" arguments, he advances the "misanthropic" one that because humans are so defective and cause vast amounts of harm, it is wrong to create more of them. David Wasserman defends procreation against the anti-natalist challenge. He outlines a variety of moderate pro-natalist positions, which all see procreation as often permissible but never required. After criticizing the main anti-natalist arguments, he reviews those pronatalist positions. He argues that constraints on procreation are best understood in terms of the role morality of prospective parents, considers different views of that role morality, and argues for one that imposes only limited constraints based on the well-being of the future child. He then argues that the expected good of a future child and of the parent-child relationship can provide a strong justification for procreation in the face of expected adversities without giving individuals any moral reason to procreate. Read more... Abstract: While procreation is ubiquitous, attention to the ethical issues involved in creating children is relatively rare. The authors of Debating Procreation take opposing views on this important question. Read more...

尊敬的读者：
欢迎您访问我们的网站。本站的初衷是为大家提供一个共享学习资料、交换知识的平台。每位用户都可以将文件上传至网盘并分享。
然而，随着用户上传的资料增多，我们发现部分不宜或版权问题的书籍被分享到了本站。
为此，我们已经关闭了分享入口，并进行了多次书籍审查，但仍有部分内容未能彻底审查到位。
在此，我们恳请广大读者与我们共同监督，如发现任何不宜内容，请 点击此处 进行举报，我们会第一时间处理并下架相关内容。
希望我们能共建一个文明社区！感谢您的理解与支持！