But a little responsible for EVERY INSTANCE OF SUFFERING. That adds up to a lot. — khaled
It's different if, say, a teacher (just using another fatherly figure) is very nice to you and you're grateful to him and you blame other people for your suffering. In that case he literally has no connection to your suffering so is not to blame. However if it turns out the teacher is the one that originally picked your classmates and knowingly picked bullies when he had other options, it would be a different story wouldn't it? — khaled
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never blamed my parents for anything. Nor other people for that matter and I don't see how it is relevant who I personally blame for what as to the validity of that blame — khaled
Oh you don't see that? What about all those starving children in africa who you know apparently OWE money to? How long of a sentence should you get for NOT providing as much joy as you could to other people. Stop typing and have more kids lest you deny them joy which is apparently morally punishable.
See how ridiculous it sound to say you owe others joy or pleasure? If you truly did you wouldn't be wasting time typing here as it is denying someone somewhere some pleasure potentially. The only thing you owe others is not harming them. Neither of us OWES the other a massage. — khaled
Look at the asymmetry thing. It clearly says that having children has both good and bad aspects to it. However, me participating in, or not participating in society has a negligably small impact on the suffering or pleasure of any one person so it doesn't matter which I do morally speaking. — khaled
Since when does having children give you immortality? Are you implying that if I have a child I will somehow "live on" consciously INSIDE their cells or something? — khaled
..... No. And heck, if there WAS such a disease I'd say it is debatable to allow having a child in this case. — khaled
I am very happy with my life. And heck jobs can be fun. That was the point of the metaphor. They CAN be fun but they're not guaranteed to be which is why you can't force people to work them — khaled
It's not "only to satiate my own desires". It's to stop more people from suffering. — khaled
Find me a valid reason or a valid benefactor to the act of having children other than the parents of said children — khaled
If Jill applying any sort of force on Jack that is going to leave a long lasting effect is bad just cuz then it doesn't matter if that force or something else is the cause of Jack's suffering. A and B have nothing to do with causality but if you pick A then what caused Jack's suffering doesn't matter morally. That's what I mean when I say it doesn't matter to debate who's the cause of Jack's suffering. But had you picked B then determining if that force is the cause of Jack's suffering is significant. You picked A so it doesn't matter if Jack suffers or not or what makes him suffer, Jill is still at fault.
I started this whole situation assuming you would have picked B and was trying to understand how you can causally peg a force to someone's suffering directly. You don't have to do that if you picked A though.
So now I guess we're back at where we were like 3 days ago. You consider actions done on living creatures that are currently not capable of giving consent but will become capable of doing so in the future at some point morally considerable. Ergo you didn't think genetically modifying children to suffer is morally permissable. However you set the bar of what counts as "abnormal" alterations at "whatever society dictates is normal or abnormal" which by definition will never make birth abnormal. So if your argument justifying why fertilization (an action done on a living creature that is currently not capable of giving consent but will become capable of doing so in the future at some point) is morally permissable is because society dictates it. And if that is all it takes for something to be morally permissable then there is no chance you'll ever consider birth as morally problematic
I just want to get this point straight. Does fertilization fall under: an action done on a living creature that is currently not capable of giving consent but will become capable of doing so in the future at some point?
And if so is your reason for saying it is moral that society has decided it doesn't count as "abnormal"
And if not how is it that fertilization is different from genetic engineering. They are both modifications done on living creatures (sperm and egg) currently incapable of giving consent that will become capable of giving consent later. But you classify one as a modification and the other not — khaled
fertilization/conception is NOT doing something to an entity that is normally capable or granting or withholding consent. — Terrapin Station
My policy on actions performed on an entity that is currently not capable or granting or withholding consent, but that will likely survive as a consent-capable being, is that you'd not be allowed to unusually modify, outside of corrective measures for deformities, diseases, etc., or physically or psychologically abuse the non-consent-capable entity in a manner that would linger indefinitely/not be reversible during their consent-capable years. You can't overlook the word "unusual" there (as I'm predicting you'll do even with me pointing this out). — Terrapin Station
I said "at worst", as in not necessarily responsible. — leo
So if some individual doesn't see his parents as responsible for his suffering, who the heck do you think you are to tell that individual he's wrong and his parents are really responsible for his suffering? What makes your subjective point of view more important than his subjective point of view? — leo
I said, in my view I owe joy to my future children — leo
You say it's ok to make other people suffer if you need to do it to survive. First that's your opinion, not a fact, some people see sacrifice as a good thing so others don't have to suffer because of them. — leo
Second, again, if you want to risk causing suffering as little as possible, go live in the woods far from anyone and only eat plants, that's enough to survive, yet you don't do that, because you're inconsistent. — leo
Third, other people besides you have their own subjective idea of what they "need to do to survive". Plenty of people indeed hold the view that having children is a way to transcend death, if you look around you will find them. Not everyone is like you you know? A few examples from the first page of Google: — leo
I guess you don't know that infertility is correlated with depression and suicide. — leo
When you want something so much that it gives meaning to your life, and you can't have it, you suffer greatly — leo
Which is your desire. — leo
You know plenty of children are happy to be alive right? — leo
And the metaphor is shit because for most people life has nothing to do with a job. — leo
At any rate. Yes, I'm the arbiter of what's good, relative to me. You're the arbiter of what's good, relative to you. That's how it necessarily works for everyone. Good/bad and the like are judgments we make and dispositions we have regarding preferences. That includes if what someone uses for a guide is a consensus opinion or something like that. They're still deciding that relative to them/their opinion of good, they're going to go by what the consensus opinion is. — Terrapin Station
That's not what's written there.... I didn't ask this. — khaled
Someone like Terrapin Station is simply going to say something like, "I don't believe harm should be the only consideration or any consideration for moral decision making". — schopenhauer1
Anything other than harm at the procreational decision-making level would be forcing a projected agenda on someone else that would be using them for that agenda. — schopenhauer1
Until natalists can answer why starting negative situations on other's behalf is permissible — schopenhauer1
I don't think the matter is as simple or flippant as you are making this out, — schopenhauer1
This decision affects another person, — schopenhauer1
Creating negative situations for other people, — schopenhauer1
no, it's not something done to an entity that will later be capable of consenting. The entity in question doesn't exist until conception. — Terrapin Station
So, now given that fertilization doesn't count as "actions performed on an entity that is currently not capable or granting or withholding consent, but that will likely survive as a consent-capable being?" because the baby doesn't exist as it is occuring, on what ground did you say abnormal genetic engineering is wrong? They are both modifications to sperm or eggs so why is one wrong and the other ok? — khaled
If it's only doing something to sperm and or eggs that are not fertilized — Terrapin Station
I didn't ask if you had a problem with it I asked do you even consider it, morally speaking. — khaled
Now how does genetic engineering fall under that category? Because you also said it does previously — khaled
Now you're not very familiar with how English normally works? "I don't have a problem with it"--in other words, a moral problem. That's the topic. — Terrapin Station
I have no idea what the actual process is for genetic engineering. That's not my field. If it's only doing something to sperm and/or eggs that aren't fertilized then I don't have a problem with it. That's why I just typed that. — Terrapin Station
Now you're not very familiar with how English normally works? — Terrapin Station
t could also mean "I don't have a problem with it" as in it is ethically permissable but it IS a moral issue. — khaled
I am asking which fertilization counts as: Moral issue but it has been determined that the act is permissalble or not moral issue at all — khaled
You can't simultaneously complain that I misread what you say and also that I ask for clarification. — khaled
So if it so happens that the WAY you genetically engineer a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth doesn't involve interacting with the embryo post fertilization in any way is it morally permissable to genetically modify a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth? — khaled
It's morally permissible to modify the sperm and or egg. You're not doing anything to a child at that point, — Terrapin Station
I take it it IS morally permissable to genetically modify a child — khaled
Okay, so when we genetically modify sperm or an egg, are we genetically modifying a child? — Terrapin Station
That is what "genetically modifying a child" means yes. — khaled
Is genetically modifying sperm and eggs in such a way that the final result of that modification is that a child will be born with 8 broken limbs on birth morally problematic? — khaled
Yes, I think it is, but not because we're doing anything to a child. — Terrapin Station
This was already answered long ago. Because it would create an abnormal situation for the child that would create a lot of problems. — Terrapin Station
Cool and you define "abnormal" in a culturally evolved sense? As in whatever society decides is abnormal? — khaled
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.