Philosophy Now Forum

Is there any solid scientific evidence to support a conclusion that it's better for children to live in a family unit with their biological parents, or does it matter? Is there anything at all wrong with being raised by non-biological "parents" or even just anyone who comes along and adopts them (provided the adopted parents aren't abusive or produce dysfunction in the child or otherwise are able to raise a good child)? And if there is not, then why should couples try to stay together for a lifetime? Why not just have sex with whoever we want, produce children and then move on to the next sexual partner if we wish?

Anecdotally: kids with a mom and dad who are faithful to each other and consistent with the kids in terms of morality, have a better time of it as kids and adults. Kids from less structured, less moral, promiscuous settings have a worse time of it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:28 pm Why not just have sex with whoever we want, produce children and then move on to the next sexual partner if we wish?

If promiscuous sex is the best you think is possible to you, then that will be your choice, but if there are children as a result, they are the consequence of your chosen behavior and therefore your responsibility. If someone else is willing to take that responsibility for you, except for the cost to your sense of integrity, there is no reason for you to not allow them to, but it would be wrong for you to count on that wouldn't it?

It is too bad if you really do not think you are worth loving enough by a women worth your loving for you not to want to share your entire life with, including the joy of raising your own children. It is also too bad if you think sex with just anyone will every satisfy you as sex with the one who becomes your whole reason for living does. But most people go through life settling for less than the best, because the best is too costly and demanding.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:28 pm Is there any solid scientific evidence to support a conclusion that it's better for children to live in a family unit with their biological parents, or does it matter? Is there anything at all wrong with being raised by non-biological "parents" or even just anyone who comes along and adopts them (provided the adopted parents aren't abusive or produce dysfunction in the child or otherwise are able to raise a good child)? And if there is not, then why should couples try to stay together for a lifetime? Why not just have sex with whoever we want, produce children and then move on to the next sexual partner if we wish?

Yes, there's a ton of evidence. The having of a loving, stable, two-parent home is the single most powerful factor in life-success for children. And biological relatedness is a powerful element in that.

That doesn't mean there are no exceptions: it means that statistically, the exceptions are only exceptions, not the rule.

Of course there is no evidence, which is why none of the religious nutjobs on here has any.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:41 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:28 pm Is there any solid scientific evidence to support a conclusion that it's better for children to live in a family unit with their biological parents, or does it matter? Is there anything at all wrong with being raised by non-biological "parents" or even just anyone who comes along and adopts them (provided the adopted parents aren't abusive or produce dysfunction in the child or otherwise are able to raise a good child)? And if there is not, then why should couples try to stay together for a lifetime? Why not just have sex with whoever we want, produce children and then move on to the next sexual partner if we wish?

Yes, there's a ton of evidence.

Where is this, so called, "ton of" evidence?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:41 am The having of a loving, stable, two-parent home is the single most powerful factor in life-success for children. And biological relatedness is a powerful element in that.

Why would biological relatedness have any bearing on, so called, "life-success"?

And what is "life-success" based on, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:41 am That doesn't mean there are no exceptions: it means that statistically, the exceptions are only exceptions, not the rule.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:28 pm Is there any solid scientific evidence to support a conclusion that it's better for children to live in a family unit with their biological parents, or does it matter? Is there anything at all wrong with being raised by non-biological "parents" or even just anyone who comes along and adopts them (provided the adopted parents aren't abusive or produce dysfunction in the child or otherwise are able to raise a good child)? And if there is not, then why should couples try to stay together for a lifetime?

Since when has the word 'should' be in connection with 'couples staying together'?

In what 'world' "should couples stay together"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:28 pm Why not just have sex with whoever we want, produce children and then move on to the next sexual partner if we wish?

What stops any one from doing this?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:17 am Anecdotally: kids with a mom and dad who are faithful to each other and consistent with the kids in terms of morality,

How do you define the word 'morality' here?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:17 am have a better time of it as kids and adults. Kids from less structured, less moral, promiscuous settings have a worse time of it.

What is the word 'it' here in relation to, exactly?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 1:47 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:28 pm Why not just have sex with whoever we want, produce children and then move on to the next sexual partner if we wish?

If promiscuous sex is the best you think is possible to you, then that will be your choice, but if there are children as a result, they are the consequence of your chosen behavior and therefore your responsibility.

Well this completely contradicts what you have said previously.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 1:47 am If someone else is willing to take that responsibility for you, except for the cost to your sense of integrity, there is no reason for you to not allow them to, but it would be wrong for you to count on that wouldn't it?

It is too bad if you really do not think you are worth loving enough by a women worth your loving for you not to want to share your entire life with, including the joy of raising your own children. It is also too bad if you think sex with just anyone will every satisfy you as sex with the one who becomes your whole reason for living does.

If you rely on "another" for "your whole reason for living", then you have no self worth.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 1:47 am But most people go through life settling for less than the best, because the best is too costly and demanding.

Will you provide any examples?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:49 am Of course there is no evidence, which is why none of the religious nutjobs on here has any.

Be careful what you refuse witch.

The serial killing bastards will burn you at the stake.

They need to create hell in order to get to heaven.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:49 am Of course there is no evidence, which is why none of the religious nutjobs on here has any.

https://www.purdue.edu/hhs/hdfs/fii/wp- ... s02c04.pdf

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index ... nwxnl-hL4A

https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/f ... c332c1.pdf

https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/c ... challenges

The truth is that there's so much evidence out there that you couldn't read it all in a lifetime.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:35 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:49 am Of course there is no evidence, which is why none of the religious nutjobs on here has any.

They need to create hell in order to get to heaven.

Wow! Those are powerful words, perhaps of warning to us all. Is there really a heaven and hell or is everything more like a homogenous flux whereby we all experience some of both in the same dimension. Heaven and hell are interesting thoughts to me.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:28 pm Is there any solid scientific evidence to support a conclusion that it's better for children to live in a family unit with their biological parents, or does it matter? Is there anything at all wrong with being raised by non-biological "parents" or even just anyone who comes along and adopts them (provided the adopted parents aren't abusive or produce dysfunction in the child or otherwise are able to raise a good child)?

This is more about social norms and expectations. Children are better brought up by gaurdians that provide a safe, loving stimulating environment, and have the chance to interact with children of their own age, with some access to others younger and older. Whilst biological parents might be more invested, (as there are assumptions about inheritance and reciprocal care from the child in years to come) there is no reason why other adults are not perfectly capable of offering a great environment.
It's my view that the nucleated family is not natural to simiforms, which without exception provide a widespread parenting for all children. Extended families whichinclude granparents (great)/uncles, and (g)/aunts, cousins, and friends are probably more common historically. In societies where the parenting roles are specialised the issue of old age reciprocation from a nucleated family is not even applicable.

And if there is not, then why should couples try to stay together for a lifetime? Why not just have sex with whoever we want, produce children and then move on to the next sexual partner if we wish?

However, given that the norms of society are geared for the nucleated family there are very good reasons to stay together for the children until they are late teens.
Selfish parents who decide to think only of themselves regadless of the feelings of the children should not expect the children to just shrug that off as if nothing. Parents separation can have a lasting detrimental effect on the children.
SO by all mean screw all you want, but make sure you live in a commune with lots of people to care for your progeny

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:41 am Yes, there's a ton of evidence. The having of a loving, stable, two-parent home is the single most powerful factor in life-success for children.

Only 24% of American children line in a nuclear family.
Most of the rest have the benefits of more than two guardians.

The best thing for chldren (in fact the only thing they need) is a loving, nurturing mother who puts them first. Children even adore terrible mothers. The bond between mother and child is fundamental. Much of a good mammal mother's time and energy is spent protecting her young from males.
If a good, loving, protective mother isn't a reality then as long as a chlld is the centre of someone's universe, who will love, nurture and protect them then that will suffice as a substitute.
There's no logical reason why children HAVE to have two parents. In fact, more often than not this causes extra stress and anxiety to children. Just look at the divorce rate, abuse statistics by fathers/stepfathers etc.