Anyway, what seems horrible to me is the authoritarian nature of such a law, in the sense that an authority presumes to decide for someone else something that I consider a fundamental liberty. I know you may not agree, but that's what I mean. — DingoJones
There are lots of things that children can't consent to, and which carry risks, some of which are severe, like with almost any medication or surgery — S
The alternative I am offering is, essentially, that future people have no moral weight at all. I don't like the implications of that, but I'd like to know if anyone can offer a convinving argument that they do. — Echarmion
That means that while we are still deciding, we have to treat the future child as non-existant in the present and future. — Echarmion
The special case is creating new moral subjects in the first place. — Echarmion
Even if I concede that point for the purposes of this argument, this still leaves the question of how future people can exist — Echarmion
That if an action results in harming someone in the future, it doesn't matter whether or not that person existed at the time the action took place. — khaled
Where did you get that I was appealing to consequentialism? — khaled
And for all of those cases where putting a child through surgery is considered to be ok is when the risk of not going through surgery Trumps the risk of going through surgery. — khaled
You wouldn't consider it moral for parents to force their children to go through a surgery that replaces their hands with hooves for example would you? — khaled
The only situation where people find it ok to put children through surgery is when the surgery is the least risky option. — khaled
False — S
Basically a repetition of the same false assertion. — S
Another false analogy. You're really bad at analogies. — S
how in the world do you expect me to go about proving a claim such as "In every situation when consent is not available the least risky option is chosen". Do you seriously expect me to go over every conceivable situation where consent is not available and you have to make a situation for someone else?
It would be so much easier for you to come up with a counterexample to disprove it wouldn't it? — khaled
Give an example of it being false. — khaled
Why is this one a false analogy do you mind explaining? — khaled
Give one yourself. — S
All you have to do is think of a situation where the parents make a decision based on what they consider to be best for the child where that doesn't necessarily match up with the least risky option. — S
A fish is just like a dog! — S
That IS the least risky option though. — khaled
That's not what my analogies are like though. The things being compared share common features, it's just that one is extreme. Fish and dogs don't share any common features. — khaled
Why does anyone need to go through the "growth-through-adversity" game in the first place? Seems to be that people think they have some sort of right to impose this on others, as if the universe cares that more humans play this game. "Ah yes" they might say "we need to create people to be challenged so they can be strengthened through it, and hopefully find the joy in it". — schopenhauer1
Least risky right off the bat is an incredibly hard thing to track. But I assume you would be against parents buyng kids skateboards, since these are associated with injuries. Of course there might be subtle pains (social pain, loss of joy, but these are telling pains in the context of wanting all birth to end), but do these outweigh the accidents. Shoudl parents sterilize their children? It would seem from an antinatalist position they should. Right now it is illegal, but from an antinatalist position it would seem moral. It prevents them from not only having kids, but it will, in many cases prevent untold future selves from being put at risk without consent. The possible harms of the surgery and its results pale in comparisom with all those postential future sufferers.The only situation where people find it ok to put children through surgery is when the surgery is the least risky option. — khaled
And it's also kind of weird that people say anti-natalism is a projection onto a future child while also claiming that all non-pregnant women are potential mothers without having been fertilized in the first place..?
:brow: I'm not even much into this subject, because I find it a sticky one for me personally, but I don't think the natalist arguments are pretty shitty. — Swan
Antinatalism is essentially about not having children to prevent a future person from either contingent or structural suffering. — schopenhauer1
If you want to stop describing the position in a misleading way, you can copy and paste the above. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.