No. But look at it this way--somebody's blind; should they go to an art museum, or be a painter or racecar driver? No. But my point is that it's a fallacy to say "well, that's just as good." It's not. It's the best the blind man can hope for, but people with sight shouldn't pluck out their eyes, nor should they say, "well, I guess seeing isn't for everybody!"
Because best, in all things, is a matter of taste and choice and what's best for you has little if any bearing on what's best for me.
What if my taste runs to raping and murdering virgins? It's my choice, and what's best for you has little if any bearing on what's best for me.
You and I both know at bottom that position is ridiculous. Is there a human nature? Yes. Does it involve children? Absolutlely, or there wouldn't be "humans" to have a "nature." Your argument only applies in matters of taste. Children are not a matter of taste, but some are not suited to raising children, just as some have not the vision to become pilots or the wits to become mathematicians. But those people have a defect when viewed against the best human soul; even people who give up childbearing to pursue holier paths have souls that love children. Not liking kids is a flaw in your soul.
At these junctures you're just taking it to a rediculous position errecting strawmen for your own pleasure. That's more reply than those paragraphs deserve.
You and I both know at bottom that position is ridiculous. Is there a human nature? Yes. Does it involve children? Absolutlely, or there wouldn't be "humans" to have a "nature."
Right on one wrong on two. Children (reproduction) are wrapped up in the survival instinct which, to various degrees, is shared by all living things. Strictly speaking not part of human nature just a part of nature in the big picture. One of the big parts of human nature is our desire to override nature in the big picture. We've done it since the first cave painting, we strive for ways other than reproduction to achieve some level of immortality. We leave our mark on the world in other ways, when in doubt we come up with languages so we can record our thoughts and instruct people, nurturing without breeding.
Your argument only applies in matters of taste.
Everything is a matter of taste to some degree. Eventually everyone makes a decision on children based on "taste", that's how we make decisions. The most basic being how many to have. If you can't accept 0 as a valid answer that's not my problem. But any arguement you come up with to assault that answer can be equally applied as to why your answer should be increased.
Children are not a matter of taste, but some are not suited to raising children, just as some have not the vision to become pilots or the wits to become mathematicians. But those people have a defect when viewed against the best human soul; even people who give up childbearing to pursue holier paths have souls that love children. Not liking kids is a flaw in your soul.
Ahh and here we finally get to the real crux. The actual reason why people get such a bent biscuit when they encounter those that don't want kids. You think there's something wrong with my soul. Fortunately that's not for you to decide. You can go ahead and think that. Luckily I know you're full of it. My soul is AOK. I've found other ways to achieve my immortality, one that allows me to maintain a quiet life sans diapers and all the other accoutrements of child rearing. Maybe the real thing is that you're jealous. Annoyed that people have found ways to be happy and whole that you're missing. You shouldn't be, I'm not. Everybody has to make their own path, yours has kids mine doesn't. I don't consider either superior to the other. Mine is better for me, but just me I make no claims to its value for anyone else.
But the issue isn't physical defects, it's that he doesn't like something, which would be more like hating flying. To say that human nature contains constants doesn't mean different people don't have different natures. The Republic, of course, includes discussions of different types of natures. Plato thought the best life was the philosophical one, but not everyone has a nature to enjoy philosophy. They're necessary, of course, for the city to exist; otherwise, you'd have no craftsmen. So there's no reason someone can't have a nature such that they don't like children. It may be that the highest nature would want children (although you've said otherwise), but that hasn't been shown.
What if my taste runs to raping and murdering virgins? It's my choice, and what's best for you has little if any bearing on what's best for me.
In that case, the big issue would be your victims.
You and I both know at bottom that position is ridiculous.
Sure, but that's not the position being discussed.
Your argument only applies in matters of taste. Children are not a matter of taste, but some are not suited to raising children, just as some have not the vision to become pilots or the wits to become mathematicians.
But it is a matter of taste. A person who hates flying has a nature unsuited to being a pilot, even if he can see perfectly. It may be that the best life is that of a pilot, but the nature of someone who hates flying cannot share in the joys of it, and the best life for him is something else.