Procreating risks putting WHO in an unusual situation — Terrapin Station
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
Genetic engineering puts WHO in an unusual situation. — khaled
Okay, so if not, it doesn't put anyone in an unusual situation.
That's easy, right? — Terrapin Station
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
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
why I don't actually employ that as a principle, etc. — Terrapin Station
No, but not because of any principle. — 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? — khaled
Hold up that wasn’t your response last time — 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.
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” — khaled
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
You're approaching everything like a robot. — Terrapin Station
It's almost as if you can't comprehend what I'm writing above about nuance, etc — Terrapin Station
However, you're thinking it's not your problem. — 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.* "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
Ibid.* "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
* "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
* "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
* "Should all suffering/harm be avoided?" — Terrapin Station
* "Is it wrong to do something that puts other people at risk?" — Terrapin Station
* "Is it wrong to do something against someone else's consent?" — Terrapin Station
And I would add that putting forward anti-natalism and trying to convince others of it risks causing harm. — Coben
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.It's not my fault if someone decides to read my post. That's their choice. — 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.They are aware there is a chance each post may make them depressed yet they read — 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.Secondly putting forward antinatalism also risks saving someone from tremendous harm as well which makes doing so fine by me — 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. — Coben
They may or may not be aware of that. — Coben
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
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
But you risk changing people's minds in ways that involve rather large decisions. If you happen to be wrong — Coben
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
Right, and you just opened the door to taking risks — Coben
Thou shalt not take risks of harming others who cannot consent to it — Coben
But on that one piece you cannot continue to present a purist deontological line. An asbolute moral line. — Coben
Before someone is born, what on earth would possess someone to non-consensually cause all risk of harm to another person? — schopenhauer1
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.