Paul's Argument On Having Children

556 Words2 Pages

I would agree with L.A. Paul’s argument that having children is an epistemically transformative experience that makes it difficult (or, for her, rather impossible) to make a rational choice in regards to the decision to have children or not. However, her claim that it is impossible to make rational decision based on “projections about what it would be like for you to have a child” (Paul 149) is rather controversial, as, to a certain extent at least, considering different possible projections seems more reasonable than simply having a child without much forethought. I would agree that these considerations can never fully explain what the epistemically transformative experience will actually be like, but some testimony would seem more helpful …show more content…

They address L.A. Paul’s argument concerning Sally (who would like a child, but decides not to have a child because not having one would maximize her utility) and Anne (who would not like a child, but decides to have a child because she knows it will maximize her utility). Paul argues that using this method of decision-making appears counterintuitive, but that “to be rational, we have to ignore our phenomenal preferences” (Paul 167). Unlike the authors of “Expecting the Unexpected,” I agree with Paul that making an epistemically transformative decision based on maximizing utility seems bizarre. To consider the testimony of other parents as being more important than subjective preferences, at least in the case of child-rearing, seems troubling for both parents (the threat of life-long regret) and the child in Anne’s case (what if Anne does not fully love her child because she regrets ignoring her subjective preferences?). Also, placing too much importance on testimony seems risky, as the are so many conflicting testimonies regarding

Open Document