Procreating risks putting WHO in an unusual situation — Terrapin Station

Genetic engineering puts WHO in an unusual situation. It’s that guy.

That’s not what I’m asking you to explain. I’m asking you to explain how having a “policy” towards certain actions against certain classes of beings doesn’t count as a moral principle — khaled

The nuances are that I don't use a principle-based approach, why I don't actually employ that as a principle, etc.

If I'm teaching you music, I'm going to explain that the set of notes C D E F G A B (C), centered on C, are the key of C major. I'm not going to explain to you at first that you might just as well find the five notes that aren't included in that list in the key of C major, and it would just as well be C major. That's nuance that's left out.

It's the same idea here.

Genetic engineering puts WHO in an unusual situation. — khaled

Is this under what you said earlier where genetic engineering is done on a fertilized egg?

Genetic engineering is not done on a fertilized egg

That's what you said earlier.

Okay, so if not, it doesn't put anyone in an unusual situation.

That's easy, right?

So who does procreating do anything to re putting someone at risk, etc.?

Okay, so if not, it doesn't put anyone in an unusual situation.

That's easy, right? — Terrapin Station

Ok guess we’re doing this again

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 I take it it IS morally permissable to genetically modify a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth for you? — khaled

Let me change that a bit to “genetically modify sperm and eggs such that a child will have 8 broken limbs on birth ok for you?”

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 I take it it IS morally permissable to genetically modify a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth for you? — khaled

No, but not because of any principle. I don't do ethics by principle. I think that's a horrible approach, which is why you're spouting the inanities you are re antinatalism, etc.

why I don't actually employ that as a principle, etc. — Terrapin Station

You never said you don’t employ your “policy” as a principle. So are you saying you’re fine with changing your policy towards potential people on a whim?

No, but not because of any principle. — Terrapin Station

Hold up that wasn’t your response last time

You never said you don’t employ your “policy” as a principle. So are you saying you’re fine with changing your policy towards potential people on a whim? — khaled

It was stated as a policy just like stating what notes are in the key of C major.

Hold up that wasn’t your response last time — khaled

Hence why there's no way that you're not an Aspie. You're approaching everything like a robot.

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.

And it's problematic in just the same way that it's problematic for siblings to have offspring, in the same way that it's problematic to carry through a pregnancy when we know that there are particular medical problems with the baby, etc.
8 days ago ReplyShareFlag
khaled
652
↪Terrapin Station
Yes, I think it is, but not because we're doing anything to a child.
— Terrapin Station

Why then?
8 days ago Options
Terrapin Station
11.1k
↪khaled

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

Sorry this looks messy but I’m on iPad right now. Here you said “because it would create an abnormal situation for that child that would create a lot of problems”. That’s very different from “but not because of any principle”

I see absolutely no resemblance between your chosen policy toward a certain class of beings (a moral principle) and a fact such as which notes are in the key of C major

Sorry this looks messy but I’m on iPad right now. Here you said “because it would create an abnormal situation for that child that would create a lot of problems”. That’s very different from “but not because of any principle” — khaled

It's almost as if you can't comprehend what I'm writing above about nuance, etc.

I see absolutely no resemblance between your chosen policy toward a certain class of beings (a moral principle) and a fact such as which notes are in the key of C major — khaled

I can see that. However, you're thinking it's not your problem.

You're approaching everything like a robot. — Terrapin Station

Pointing out that you’re giving radically different responses to the same question 2 days later is “approaching everything like a robot” sure

It's almost as if you can't comprehend what I'm writing above about nuance, etc — Terrapin Station

I can’t.

However, you're thinking it's not your problem. — Terrapin Station

I never said that either.

So we'd need to do something much simpler to start over.

It would help to not approach the simpler start in an argumentative manner.

not today it’s 10 pm here

Okay.

Just for tomorrow, we could maybe start with these questions:

* "Should all suffering/harm be avoided?"

My answer is "No." (At least not on how broadly folks seem to use the words "suffering" and "harm.")

* "Is it wrong to do something that puts other people at risk?"

My answer is "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on the risk, the exact situation, etc.

We could also add:

* "Is it wrong to do something against someone else's consent?"

Again, my answer would be "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on what we're talking about.

* "Should all suffering/harm be avoided?"

My answer is "No." (At least not on how broadly folks seem to use the words "suffering" and "harm.") — Terrapin Station

And I would add that putting forward anti-natalism and trying to convince others of it risks causing harm. Not just in causing guilt, but if a successful campaign, could convince people to choose something that in fact the anti-natalists might be wrong about. IOW they should know they are fallible, and since their positive seems to rest on this idea of being perfect about not causing or risking harm for others, they fail their own criteria.

* "Is it wrong to do something that puts other people at risk?"

My answer is "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on the risk, the exact situation, etc. — Terrapin Station

Ibid.

* "Is it wrong to do something against someone else's consent?"

Again, my answer would be "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on what we're talking about. — Terrapin Station

Ibid.

Good points.

* "Should all suffering/harm be avoided?"

My answer is "No." (At least not on how broadly folks seem to use the words "suffering" and "harm.")

* "Is it wrong to do something that puts other people at risk?"

My answer is "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on the risk, the exact situation, etc.

We could also add:

* "Is it wrong to do something against someone else's consent?"

Again, my answer would be "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on what we're talking about. — Terrapin Station

Before someone is born, what on earth would possess someone to non-consensually cause all risk of harm to another person? What does someone need to go through in the first place in order for this to be justified? Nothing..just selfish want of that future person to be born to go through XYZ agenda (which may or may not happen the way you intended it to anyways).

You also clearly don't think humans are on some sort of mission to bring some value of some kind to the universe- you seem too skeptical for that kind of concrete assurance.

I just find it odd that you would believe a) preventing suffering is not a priority (and ipso facto, allowing suffering, where there needs to be none is good in this view), and b) not even thinking suffering is bad, is mildly sadistic. If you want to go the route of "I just want to put value in the world of some sort" that would be contradictory to your usual skepticism. If you somehow do want to contradict yourself and think that some value needs to be put forth in the world, then this needs to be justified above starting suffering for another in the first place.

But really, this just comes down to you think people should just do what they want to do as long as the public is generally okay with it. So your ethics isn't principle based other than ad populum basically. Because clearly you think other things are wrong, and if you do not base that on a principle than that too is just enculturated ad populum beliefs as well.. So you do in way have a belief, it is follow what is culturally acceptable at the time.

Lets be honest, if youre not born extremely rich, and with amazing genes, life will suck, but even then, you can suffer greatly in life. Life is not a gift, nor is life beautiful. Otherwise there would be much less, or no suffering.

* "Should all suffering/harm be avoided?" — Terrapin Station

That should be the goal yes. For a living person this is impossible so in that case he/she should do whatever causes the least suffering/harm. Please give an example where there is a course of action available that produces less suffering for others as well as for oneself and where it is ethical to take anything but that course of action

* "Is it wrong to do something that puts other people at risk?" — Terrapin Station

Not categorically. However it is wrong to do something that risks causing someone significantly more risk of harm than the harm it alleviates elsewhere. And at some point of harm risked an action becomes immoral no matter what, ex: investing someone’s life savings without their consent is always wrong. I don't think it's immoral to steal food from a billionaire if you're starving although it's a risk of harm but I do think it's immoral to, say, shoot someone because "there is a chance the bullet might not hit, so this is really just risking harm". Betting that the bullet won’t hit is a ridiculous risk to take with almost no benefit (just your own amusement if you happen to be a sadist) and that’s why it’s bad. Not just because it’s a risk but because it’s a ridiculous one.

I say birth is not too bad of a risk to take for someone else because it risks causing too much suffering for the pleasure it provides and the lack of consent in taking a large (the largest) risk.

* "Is it wrong to do something against someone else's consent?" — Terrapin Station

Depends on the thing. After a certain amount of cost however it should always be wrong. So it's always wrong to invest someone's entire life savings on anything without their consent but it's not wrong to, say, push someone out of the way of a car. In the first case, if you're wrong about the person's intentions you will cost them dearly in the second case you won't cost them much even if you're wrong and they were trying to commit suicide

And I would add that putting forward anti-natalism and trying to convince others of it risks causing harm. — Coben

It's not my fault if someone decides to read my post. That's their choice. They are aware there is a chance each post may make them depressed yet they read. That's the first point

Secondly putting forward antinatalism also risks saving someone from tremendous harm as well which makes doing so fine by me

It's not my fault if someone decides to read my post. That's their choice. — khaled

You set a causal chain in motion. You made a choice to try to convince people of something. If you do this this leads to consequences, and ones which they cannot predict before they read it.

They are aware there is a chance each post may make them depressed yet they read — khaled

They may or may not be aware of that. Just as when I leave the house I may or may not be aware that someone may accidently run over my foot or intentionally rob me. The fact that people are aware of what might happen, does not change the fact that deciding to drive is takign the risk you might hurt someone, you might drive unsafely, the act of driving might lead to risks for other people. You might not be as good a driver as you think. We all take risks for others. And these others may have children already.

Further it is not just that they might get depressed. They might make choices that you are certain are fine - like not having children - w hen in fact your arguments, while seemingly immaculate ot you, might not be. You should know that you are potentially fallible, as we all are. But you risk changing people's minds in ways that involve rather large decisions. If you happen to be wrong, then the risk, even at the level of an individual, is not a small risk. Yet, you take this risk. It might affect the spouses, however, of your readers, even if the reader makes this choice knowing they might get depressed.

Secondly putting forward antinatalism also risks saving someone from tremendous harm as well which makes doing so fine by me — khaled

Right, and you just opened the door to taking risks. You went from being a deontologist about actions, to being a consequentialist. And once you are a consequentialist, we get to be. We get to take risks with the lives of others, just as you do. And we get to do it based on our values. And here we have a gap, because our values are not the same. And of course you get to argue your values. But in general in what I have seen in the thread, the anti-natalists present themselves as having a commandment. Thou shalt not take risks of harming others who cannot consent to it. But you do that when you think it serves a greater good.

Join the club.

This obviously does not mean you agree with the natalists on their whole position.

But on that one piece you cannot continue to present a purist deontological line. An asbolute moral line.

You set a causal chain in motion. You made a choice to try to convince people of something. If you do this this leads to consequences, and ones which they cannot predict before they read it. — Coben

Yes but they decided to go to this site in the first place. Whereas the child never decided to be born. I have consent from then in spreading my idea because they're ultimately the ones that go to read it. I WOULD say it is immoral if I barged into people's houses and forced them to listen to me.

You also completely ignored that if my posts convince someone to become an antinatalist I will have saved someone from a lifetime worth of suffering which is fine by me.

They may or may not be aware of that. — Coben

They can't not be aware of that

The fact that people are aware of what might happen, does not change the fact that deciding to drive is takign the risk you might hurt someone — Coben

I agree. But it's a risk the passerby consents to when he decides to use public transportation and roads instead of, say living in a jungle somewhere. If you want convenient transportation and good infrastructure you agree to the small risk of getting run over. The child never consents to being born beforehand

They might make choices that you are certain are fine - like not having children - w hen in fact your arguments, while seemingly immaculate ot you, might not be — Coben

I could take these words and return them to you as they are. "Your arguments may be wrong therefore you're wrong" is not an argument

But you risk changing people's minds in ways that involve rather large decisions. If you happen to be wrong — Coben

Then nothing bad will happen. If I don't have kids kids nothing bad will happen. If on the other hand YOU'RE wrong and having children IS immoral and causes severe suffering then you having children is very bad. That's another point for antinatalism. If the antinatalist is wrong and doesn't have kids: no one suffers except the antinatalist (unless you propose there are magical ghost babies waiting to be born that will suffer). If the natalist is wrong and has kids: the kid suffers.

Yet, you take this risk. It might affect the spouses, however, of your readers, even if the reader makes this choice knowing they might get depressed. — Coben

Then they made the choice to expose their spouses to these ideas not me obviously. How is that my fault.

Right, and you just opened the door to taking risks — Coben

I never closed it.... I've always been arguing that birth is a risk too large and that's what makes it bad. Not just because it's a risk. I concede I take risks in harming others all the time. Yet I COULD close it because every example you’ve cited so far, I have consent in to do the potentially harmful thing.

Thou shalt not take risks of harming others who cannot consent to it — Coben

That's not quite accurate it's "Thou shalt not take risks of harming others who cannot consent to it when it risks causing an entire lifetime of suffering for them just cuz you want kids and when you’re literally causing the same problem for your kids because they too would want kids. Fixing a problem by relocating it wholesale onto someone else is a ridiculous solution especially when you add a side dish of extra suffering for that person”

But on that one piece you cannot continue to present a purist deontological line. An asbolute moral line. — Coben

I never did. If it seemed like I did that's my bad. Having children is bad because it's a risk too large. The benefit to having kids is to the parent and society as a whole. Also to the kids. The harm done is also to the kid. I also say that the fact that the action risks harming the kid overcomes the fact that it is good for society, the parent, and maybe for the kid. Just making my position clear.

The argument goes:

P1: You don't have a moral obligation to improve someone else's life in any way (unless you’re the one that deteriorated it)
P2: You have a moral obligation not to take risks of harming others people's lives for no good reason (having consent from the person in question is a good reason)
P3: Having children has a chance of improving someone's life significantly (you, the child, and other people) but per P1 you have no moral obligation to have a child because of this
P4: Having children has a chance of harming someone significantly (the child) just because you want children (not a good reason) so per P2 you shouldn't do it

C: You shouldn't have children

Where do you have a problem with this

Before someone is born, what on earth would possess someone to non-consensually cause all risk of harm to another person? — schopenhauer1

Before they're born--but do you mean after conception?

A lot of things that you and khaled are saying now sound like you're fine with conception, but you're advocating necessarily having an abortion after one has conceived.