It is per decision that you based your policy on actions that will impact a living being capable of giving consent in the future based on statistical abnormality though right? — khaled
At any rate, it's not just that I don't use "harm" as a moral hinge. Even if I did, I certainly wouldn't use "creating the possibility of harm" as a moral hinge. In general, I'm very much against legislating against and having moral proscriptions against possibilities/potentials. I'm not against negligence laws, but they have to be about something specific that actually happened, where the negligent party had a causal role in the occurrence, per the way I define cause. — Terrapin Station
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
That's not something that I'm either legally or morally against. I'm not categorically against manipulation, exploitation, etc. In fact, I think that both can be quite positive instead. — Terrapin Station
Until natalists can answer why starting negative situations on other's behalf is permissible
— schopenhauer1
So the situation that parents start is life. If the kid in question sees life as a "negative situation," then we should get them some help--psychological help, basically. (Which can be obtained in a variety of ways, including other things to focus on--like philosophy in some cases, religion in some cases, etc.; it doesn't necessarily require a psychologist or psychiatrist, though it might.) — Terrapin Station
I don't think the matter is as simple or flippant as you are making this out,
— schopenhauer1
It's not flippant at all. It's an ontological fact. Good/bad and similar evaluations are simply ways that people feel about something (and/or its upshots per their understanding), dispositions they have towards it. — Terrapin Station
This decision affects another person,
— schopenhauer1
I don't know if it would be plausible to say all, but probably the vast majority of decisions affect another person in at least some indirect way. There's nothing morally problematic about this in general. — Terrapin Station
Creating negative situations for other people,
— schopenhauer1
"Negative situations" is way too vague, though. And any situation can only be negative to an individual, in that individual's opinion, which we can't know until we ask them their opinion. Anyone could consider anything negative. I don't think that a lot of what people consider negative is a moral problem. I often think that the problem lies with people considering things negative instead. For example, when people are offended by speech. — Terrapin Station
No one is talking law though, j — schopenhauer1
What I think you are really trying to convey is you have problems with basing decisions on only considerations of harm and not the potential for good experiences as well. — schopenhauer1
Any other "hinge" consideration would be selfish and of no moral worth. — schopenhauer1
"Of no moral worth" is not true, because that solely depends on what an individual assigns moral value to. Anyone can assign any moral value, positive or negative, to anything. And they can't be wrong in that, because there are no (normative) moral value facts. There's no valuation to get wrong. — Terrapin Station
I can only try to convince you that prior to birth, preventing harm for a future person is all that matters and I have presented a lot of arguments for this idea. — schopenhauer1
Mattering is subjective though. No fact can imply that anything matters or doesn't matter. It's an issue of what an individual values. The things they value matter to them. You can't "argue someone to different values." — Terrapin Station
Um, in philosophy, debates and arguments are pretty much its foundation. It's essentially built on dialectics, starting with Socrates. So your characterization is wrong there. — schopenhauer1
If you're just disagreeing with the notion that you can't argue someone to different values, show me an actual world example of doing so. — Terrapin Station
Are you asking, has anyone who has held one set of values been convinced through argument to hold another set of values? — schopenhauer1
Yes I'm asking for an actual world example of that if that's the part of my post that you're disagreeing with.
Note that I'm not saying that folks' values can't change. I've just never seen them change via arguing with them. — Terrapin Station
Before I do that, are we going to agree that philosophy is basically based on argument and dialectics? — schopenhauer1
Sure. I hadn't said anything about that, by the way. I just said that you can't change someone's values via argumentation. Most of philosophy isn't about the normative sense of values. And some philosophy that deals with values is only about values descriptively (so it's not the normative sense). — Terrapin Station
Please, normative ethics such as Kant's deontology, Mill's utilitarianism, and virtue theory are debated constantly, as are their applications, and applied ethics in general. — schopenhauer1
What would you say this has to do with the comment of mine you're quoting? — Terrapin Station
Most of philosophy isn't about the normative sense of values. And some philosophy that deals with values is only about values descriptively (so it's not the normative sense). — Terrapin Station
I said that MOST of philosophy is not about the normative sense of values. That's different than saying that NO philosophy is about the normative sense of values.
And then I said that SOME philosophy that deals with values is only about values descriptively. This doesn't imply that I'm claiming that ALL philosophy that deals with values in only about values descriptively. — Terrapin Station
I just don't get why you wrote that anyways. — schopenhauer1
Also not all philosophy about values is ethics, by the way. — Terrapin Station
but I pointed out that I hadn't said anything about what philosophy was in general, and just in case you were thinking that philosophy in general tended to imply something about normative values (otherwise why were you bringing up a characterization of philosophy in general?), I was stressing that MOST of philosophy isn't about values, period, and SOME of the philosophy that's about values isn't taking a normative approach. — Terrapin Station
create an abnormal situation for the child that would create a lot of problems. — Terrapin Station
The truth is that you will suffer in life, some people more than others. Happiness on the other hand ist not guaranteed. — Baskol1
This May be true, but many people say theyre ok when they are actually not, often due to peer pressure. — Baskol1
And you defined abnormal as whatever society dictates — khaled
Cool and you define "abnormal" in a culturally evolved sense? As in whatever society decides is abnormal?
— khaled
— 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.