Morality and Population Control
Population control has become common among governments, although critics especially churches have not been supporters of the move. Critics use the argument that people should be allowed to be born since no one knows the fate of a person before they are born. The advocates for population control, however, believe that population control is better than seeing people suffer for not having a quality life. Morality is based on the desire to do good and avoid harming others. Morally, the population can be justified since the main idea is to prevent harm on people by bringing them into existence, knowing that the quality of life is not guaranteed. The extent to the rate of populational control should, however, be checked to avoid selfishness and that the allowed population is enough to be sustained by the available resources. Limiting population growth to a reasonable extent is morally justifiable since the main idea behind the limit is to avoid causing harm by bringing people into suffering.
Happiness can be used as a measure of satisfaction in life. Population increase is, in most cases associated with a decrease in happiness where resources are not sufficient for the entire population (Soloway, n. p). Population growth limits aim at maintaining the population at a manageable level such that happiness is guaranteed for the living population. The idea of keeping people happy is morally acceptable. On the other side, making people unhappy is similar to causing harm hence morally wrong. Since setting population limits aims at keeping the living population happy, then population limits are morally justifiable. Besides, bringing more people to unhappiness is equal to harming them because sense has it that few if any individual will choose to be born in a troubled world. Moreover, living people have the responsibility of controlling the conception rate so that more people are not born into suffering. Generally, having population control strategies is crucial in maintaining happiness and hence morally justifiable.
Moral responsibilities include giving the best quality of life to a person. The best life is composed of more than the ability to cater to basic human needs but instead having the best things in life. If an individual cannot be provided with the best life, then it is morally right to save such a person from having an experience at all. The argument on the best quality of life should, however, consider the method used to avoid giving existence to a person. In this case, the birth-control procedure should not involve terminating the life of an already existing person. Generally, the methods allowed should be the ones that avoid the conception of people if the best life for them is not assured. Besides, human rights are believed to be relevant under the condition that the human being is in existence. Also, taking the risk of bringing a person to life while the quality of life is low should instead be considered immoral. People do not have the opportunity to make decisions before they are born, and thus, those responsible for birth should make the right decisions. Generally, the decision on whether or not to bring an individual to live should be made under moral considerations.
Procreation is a right that should be enjoyed with moderation. Generally, every couple enjoys the right to procreate, and international organizations make provisions for such a right. However, the enjoyment of human rights has limits. First, under no circumstance should a human right enjoyment infringe on the enjoyment of other human rights. Secondly, morality should take priority while enjoying human beings. Besides, the right to procreate given by the United Nations has a clause that mentions that “human beings have a right to choose freely and responsibly on whether or not to procreate,” Buchanan, (410). The fact that the decision should be made responsibly means that society should be considered while deciding to procreate. Besides, society is not obliged to provide quality life to an individual, and thus the parents should take full responsibility. Moreover, irresponsible enjoyment of the right to procreation has, in most cases, led to overpopulation. When overpopulation occurs, individuals are forced to rely on insufficient resources, which later leads to poor quality of life.
Morality offers a solution for restricting the possibility of individuals to have absolute freedom. The general rules that absolute freedom is subject to misuse by individuals (Tobin, n. p). For example, the absolute misuse of freedom could lead to an overpopulated world full of suffering and misery. However, morality gives individuals a sense of humanity, and care is taken concerning the number of people that should be allowed to live. Besides, freedom is always based on the ability to do good without restrictions. In this case, individuals have the freedom to procreate. Therefore, no one should give the number of children that a couple should have. Couples may decide to have no children, and no one should have a problem since society is not given a burden. However, having many children without a proper way of catering for their needs should raise the concern of society. Couples who decide to procreate without considering the welfare of the children should be viewed as being immoral. Moreover, circumstances may necessitate the withdrawal of the right to procreate. For example, overpopulated countries may put restrictions on the maximum number of children that can be born.
The argument on the moral justification of population control, however, receives a counter-argument on the enjoyment of human rights. First, the definition of life has been debatable with some people believing that conception is divine, while others believe in physical conception. Therefore, assuming that an individual who is not born has no right is based on the assumption that they do not exist. However, another issue of identity arises. Derek Parfit says, “the identity of a person cannot be maintained when conception is postponed,” Buchanan, (400). Therefore, postponing conception means that an identity has been lost and thus, a person has literary been denied the right to live. However, the argument does not consider the moral obligation of the individual deciding to change to destroy the identity.
In sum, limiting population growth to a reasonable extent is morally justifiable since the main idea behind the limit is to avoid causing harm by bringing people into suffering. Having population control strategies is crucial in maintaining happiness and hence morally justifiable. When overpopulation occurs, individuals are forced to rely on insufficient resources, which later leads to poor quality of life. The right to procreate may be infringed in cases where allowing for more people to be born leads to poor quality life and suffering. The argument that population control has the disadvantage of lost identity does not take into consideration the moral obligation of couples. Generally, population-control methods are morally justifiable to the extent that morality is the prevailing issue of concern.
Works Cited
Buchanan, David R. “Promoting justice and autonomy in public policies to reduce the health consequences of obesity.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 25.4 (2015): 395-417.
Soloway, Richard A. Birth control and the population question in England, 1877-1930. UNC Press Books, 2017.
Tobin, Kathleen A. The American religious debate over birth control, 1907-1937. McFarland, 2017.